Search forums

Forums

Export thread

Star Trek Into Darkness... Spoilers Ahoy

Dec 3, 2012#1

sixpackshaker

[DOUBLEPOST=1354575053][/DOUBLEPOST]Starring Benedict Cumberbatch

Dec 3, 2012#2

ThatNickGuy

And possibly Nolan's Batman, judging by that poster.

Dec 3, 2012#3

GasBandit

And that's why you don't feed aliens tex-mex.

Dec 3, 2012#4

Cheesy1

ThatNickGuy said:
And possibly Nolan's Batman, judging by that poster.

I was gonna say "Star Trek: Batman" by that poster! Kirk is a descendant of the Wayne family?!

Dec 3, 2012#5

Frank

I'm hoping it will be as fun to watch as the last one. I'm also hoping it won't be nearly as fucking stupid.

Dec 3, 2012#6

ThatNickGuy

I liked the first one.

Dec 3, 2012#7

Frank

I did too, but there's no denying that it was dumb as hell.

Dec 3, 2012#8

strawman

Frank said:
I did too, but there's no denying that it was dumb as hell.

I formally deny that assertion.

Dec 3, 2012#9

sixpackshaker

Come on, didn't you guys love that Engineering was a freaking brewery.

Scotty would have loved it more if it were a distillery.

Dec 3, 2012#10

Gilgamesh

stienman said:
I formally deny that assertion.

Formally agreeing with your denial of that assertion.

Dec 3, 2012#11

Hylian

The last movie definitely had its stupid moments and it left a lot of unanswered questions but it was still the best Star Trek that had come out in ages. So for the moment I am definitely feeling enthusiasm and excitement but with a healthy dose of paranoia and doubt throw in just to keep myself in check.

Dec 3, 2012#12

Frank

Seriously, you guys are going to argue a movie that has a star 500 light years from another go super nova, and the people of Romulus have no time to react is smart? One where a raw cadet is given command of what would be the modern equivalent of an aircraft carrier? The whole meeting Spock on the ice planet silliness where Spock happens to know that's where Scotty lives who happens to be the only person who could invent a way for them to get back to their ship.

The movie was dumb. It was super fun to watch, but it was fucking dumb.

It was written by the same guys that wrote Transformers 2. It was never going to be smart.

Dec 3, 2012#13

Calleja

There needs to be a "Good point" clicky thingie for posts, "Informative" isn't really the same.

Dec 3, 2012#14

figmentPez

ThatNickGuy said:
And possibly Nolan's Batman, judging by that poster.

I got more of a Captain Jack Harkness vibe from it.

Dec 3, 2012#15

rac3r_x

Yes please bring on Star Trek Wars: The Wrathening of Vader, these movies have nothing to do with Star Trek other than the title and character names, it has become just another gussied up whore for corporate Hollywood with a lot of flash and big booms, with about as much substance as a Transformer movie. "Oooh hey, I have an idea let's do the post-apocalyptic thing in the future, Kirk can wear a leather trenchcoat and be bad-ass and stuff!" :eek:

I weep for the future and the loss of Roddenberry's vision.

Dec 3, 2012#16

Terrik

Frank said:
Seriously, you guys are going to argue a movie that has a star 500 light years from another go super nova, and the people of Romulus have no time to react is smart? One where a raw cadet is given command of what would be the modern equivalent of an aircraft carrier? The whole meeting Spock on the ice planet silliness where Spock happens to know that's where Scotty lives who happens to be the only person who could invent a way for them to get back to their ship.

The movie was dumb. It was super fun to watch, but it was fucking dumb.

It was written by the same guys that wrote Transformers 2. It was never going to be smart.

It's..it's Star Trek. It..it doesn't have to make sense!

IT DOESN'T HAVE TO MAKE SENSE!

FRANK STAHP.

Dec 3, 2012#17

Ravenpoe

figmentPez said:
I got more of a Captain Jack Harkness vibe from it.

Fuck yeah that'd be awesome.

He'd totally get more tail than Kirk.

Dec 3, 2012#18

sixpackshaker

Ravenpoe said:
Fuck yeah that'd be awesome.

He'd totally get more tail than Kirk.

Of course, being Bi just doubles your odds...

oh yeah, Omni...

Dec 3, 2012#19

Ravenpoe

sixpackshaker said:
Of course, being Bi just doubles your odds...

oh yeah, Omni...

Sex with alien women.

Sex with alien men.

Sex with alien hermaphrodites.

Sex with alien non-gendered amorphous blobs.

Sex with sparkly energy beings.

Basically, everything within 10 lightyears of him is getting laid.

Dec 3, 2012#20

rac3r_x

Terrik said:
It's..it's Star Trek. It..it doesn't have to make sense!

IT DOESN'T HAVE TO MAKE SENSE!

FRANK STAHP.

Since when, even if they had to make up bullshit to make other bullshit make sense at least they tried and came up with a plausible explanation to have the bullshit work with the story, not,""Oh hai, this star blew up 2 weeks ago and it is going to destroy us tomorrow", they could have at least tried to have it make sense, anyone with elementary school science knows that it would take a smidge longer to get there. And don't even get me started on that horseshit with Vulcan blowing up and the "moon" Spock is on watching it die has some stupid name implying it is in some other star system yet is closer to Vulcan than our Moon is to Earth, yet Vulcan going poof doesn't cause it the least bit of problems.

Dec 3, 2012#21

Ravenpoe

Quick, someone reverse the polarity of the reflector dish and point it at this thread.

Dec 3, 2012#22

Frank

rac3r_x said:
Yes please bring on Star Trek Wars: The Wrathening of Vader, these movies have nothing to do with Star Trek other than the title and character names, it has become just another gussied up whore for corporate Hollywood with a lot of flash and big booms, with about as much substance as a Transformer movie. "Oooh hey, I have an idea let's do the post-apocalyptic thing in the future, Kirk can wear a leather trenchcoat and be bad-ass and stuff!" I weep for the future and the loss of Roddenberry's vision.

I think that's Benedict Cumberbatch's character on the poster.

Dec 3, 2012#23

Gilgamesh

Frank said:
I think that's Benedict Cumberbatch's character on the poster.

It is. He's just being angry.

Dec 3, 2012#24

Ravenpoe

Frank said:
I think that's Benedict Cumberbatch's character on the poster.

Yeah, he's playing the villain.

Dec 3, 2012#25

Frank

I honestly am pretty stoked for him, I just hope he's a better villain than Nero...though Cumberbatch could say anything and I wouldn't give a shit and just listen.

Dat voice.

Dec 3, 2012#26

sixpackshaker

If you were a Limey and someone just blew up Future London, you'd be angry too.

Dec 4, 2012#27

Tress

Some of y'all need to settle down. It's just a movie.

Dec 4, 2012#28

ThatNickGuy

Fun fact: Captain Jack gets more tail in one episode of Torchwood than all of Kirk's career.

Dec 4, 2012#29

Wahad

ThatNickGuy said:
Fun fact: Captain Jack gets more tail in one episode of Torchwood than all of Kirk's career.

That's not a fun fact, because admitting that that's a fun fact is admitting that Torchwood was fun.

Dec 4, 2012#30

strawman

Tress said:
It's just a movie.

Tress said:
It's just a movie.

Tress said:
just a movie

You are dead to me.

Dec 4, 2012#31

Charlie Don't Surf

holy shit you really mad about star trek

Dec 4, 2012#32

Gusto

Perhaps tachyons.

Dec 4, 2012#33

Frank

I don't think anyone besides, maybe rac3r_x, was mad about the movie.

Dec 4, 2012#34

phil

I liked the first one. It's fun and let's you enjoy seeing some good trek action with an actual budget and everything. As far as trek goes its lacking. I have higher hopes for this one in terms of being good sci fi since we'll be past the origins.

Dec 4, 2012#35

sixpackshaker

I am worried that this will be a grimmer, darker Star Trek...

Leave that to the Alien Franchise. I want to see Civilized "Man" solving problems with intelligence and bravery.

Dec 4, 2012#36

GasBandit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
holy shit you really mad about star trek

... are you even familiar with nerds, the internet, or american pop culture? Or did you just crawl out of a chrysalis in 2005?

Dec 4, 2012#37

AshburnerX

I wonder how they are going to reconcile this movie when they are trying to get that new Star Trek series starring Michael Dorn (as Worf) off the ground.

Dec 4, 2012#38

sixpackshaker

AshburnerX said:
I wonder how they are going to reconcile this movie when they are trying to get that new Star Trek series starring Michael Dorn (as Worf) off the ground.

Different realities and all...

But I'd put $2 down that Dorn is making this up in his head.

Dec 4, 2012#39

MindDetective

I sure hope there is less lens flare in the next one...

Dec 4, 2012#40

strawman

MindDetective said:
I sure hope there is less lens flare in the next one...

Was there something in the last one besides lens flare?

Dec 4, 2012#41

MindDetective

stienman said:
Was there something in the last one besides lens flare?

I should clarify that I don't mean I hope it is a shorter movie, which would also result in less lens flare!

I pointed out how much there was in to my wife and she can't unsee it now. It didn't exactly ruin the movie for her but it definitely knocked it down a notch.

Dec 4, 2012#42

ThatNickGuy

stienman said:
Was there something in the last one besides lens flare?

Yuh huh! Leonard Nemoy was there, too!

I think.

Hidden somewhere behind the lens flares.

Dec 4, 2012#43

Covar

ThatNickGuy said:
Yuh huh! Leonard Nemoy was there, too!

I think.

Hidden somewhere behind the lens flares.

It was actually Tim Russ.

Dec 4, 2012#44

Frank

Covar said:
It was actually Tim Russ.

No amount of lens flare could ever cause that happen.

Dec 4, 2012#45

filmfanatic

Read the basic plot synopsis recently. It sounds like Benedict Cumberbatch will be playing Garry Mitchell.

Dec 4, 2012#46

phil

AshburnerX said:
I wonder how they are going to reconcile this movie when they are trying to get that new Star Trek series starring Michael Dorn (as Worf) off the ground.

Wait, is this a thing? Don't toy with me.

Dec 4, 2012#47

Gilgamesh

It's so not Trek! All it has in common are names, characters, planets, the Federation, the Races and their hatreds, the technologies, the materials for those technologies, the Ships, the Academy, the Kirk Manuver and the circumstances that are seen in the Trek series. BUT IT IS NOT TREK OKAY!? THEY RUIIIIINED IT!

Dec 4, 2012#48

strawman

/insert kurtz neckbeard image macro

Dec 4, 2012#49

AshburnerX

phil said:
Wait, is this a thing? Don't toy with me.

Michael Dorn seems to think so. Bryan Fuller has his own plans.

Dec 4, 2012#50

Null

sixpackshaker said:
I am worried that this will be a grimmer, darker Star Trek...

Leave that to the Alien Franchise. I want to see Civilized "Man" solving problems with 500 pounds of technobabble.

FTFY

Dec 4, 2012#51

Jay

I'd suck a dick for a new Star Trek series.

Dec 4, 2012#52

@Li3n

Gilgamesh said:
It's so not Trek! All it has in common are names, characters, planets, the Federation, the Races and their hatreds, the technologies, the materials for those technologies, the Ships, the Academy, the Kirk Manuver and the circumstances that are seen in the Trek series. BUT IT IS NOT TREK OKAY!? THEY RUIIIIINED IT!

Bah, Shatner understood Kirk much better then the film... seriously, programming the computer to make the klingons afraid of Kirk is exactly what Kirk would do.

But what the film really missed that made it not be Star Trek was the attempt at being intellectual... it was mainly an action movie instead.

Dec 4, 2012#53

ThatNickGuy

Dec 5, 2012#54

Terrik

Jay said:
I'd suck a dick for a new Star Trek series.

Make that two.

Dec 5, 2012#55

Docseverin

I love how people are disturbed by certain areas of the movie where things "don't make sense", yet they are perfectly ok with Space Aircraft Carriers and Vulcans and Green chicks.....

Dec 5, 2012#56

Frank

I'm pretty shocked that some people apparently don't have differing levels of the suspension of disbelief and can only accept none or all of something.

Dec 5, 2012#57

ThatNickGuy

It's sort of like the argument I heard about Batman: Brave & the Bold. People said things like, "But Batman's supposed be dark, gritty, and realistic! Not fighting mummies in space with laser swords!"

Really, anyone who complains about Batman fighting mummies in space with laser swords can just jump off a cliff.

Dec 5, 2012#58

Docseverin

I am sure Frank that you are not so wrapped up in your argument that you couldn't accept that future Spock on the planet that Scotty is stationed on is as plausible as a flying Space Armada that is capable of traveling at light speed.

Dec 5, 2012#59

MindDetective

Docseverin said:
I am sure Frank that you are not so wrapped up in your argument that you couldn't accept that future Spock on the planet that Scotty is stationed on is as plausible as a flying Space Armada that is capable of traveling at light speed.

The difference is that you are asked to buy into one from the beginning. It is a precondition, a given. They are saying: "Given that this is true, here is a story..." The other is something that they say follows from those preconditions. And there is no reason to believe that the wildly improbable intersection of three lives would occur in that place GIVEN the wildly improbable world that we've chosen to accept from the beginning.

Edit to further clarify: It is like saying "Given that giraffes can breath underwater and water breathing mammals can speak, Poseidon is the god of the sea." I can accept the first two parts as true because they are given to me, much as a supposition, but the conclusion doesn't follow from those givens.

Dec 5, 2012#60

Sparhawk

I'm enjoying the new movies for being entertaining, behind all the lens flares.

Dec 5, 2012#61

Frank

Sparhawk said:
I'm enjoying the new movies for being entertaining, behind all the lens flares.

Yeah, me too. As I've said, the movie is fun to watch and is a good time all around.

Dec 5, 2012#62

Gilgamesh

Frank said:
I'm pretty shocked that some people apparently don't have differing levels of the suspension of disbelief and can only accept none or all of something.

Like accepting zombies as realistic but smoke grenades can't hide people well?

Dec 6, 2012#63

Bubble181

Jay said:
I'd suck a dick for a new Star Trek series.

Oh, sure. And then you get Enterprise, and what good does hat do to anyone?

Dec 6, 2012#64

LordRendar

Bubble181 said:
Oh, sure. And then you get Enterprise, and what good does hat do to anyone?

I think hats are pretty usefull.keep your brain from melting on a hot and sunny day or dry on a rainy one.

Dec 6, 2012#65

Bubble181

LordRendar said:
I think hats are pretty usefull.keep your brain from melting on a hot and sunny day or dry on a rainy one.

hats are like religion for the masses I tell you!

Dec 6, 2012#66

bhamv3

Psht, if hats are so awesome, why aren't there any hat-related video games?

Well, okay, there's America's number one war-themed hat simulator, but other than that.

Dec 6, 2012#67

Bubble181

> Tetris with Hats

http://armorgames.com/play/6740/treadmillasaurus-rex
> Dinosaurs with hats

http://www.roblox.com/
> Lego and hats

http://armorgames.com/play/5917/exit-path
> Running and hats

Pshaw.

Dec 6, 2012#68

evilmike

Speaking of Star Trek: Into Darkness, here's the first trailer

Dec 6, 2012#69

Sparhawk

Not another movie that destroys an Enterprise. Please let that be a different ship.

Dec 6, 2012#70

Charlie Don't Surf

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRM

Dec 6, 2012#71

strawman

Sparhawk said:
Not another movie that destroys an Enterprise. Please let that be a different ship.

It wasn't an enterprise. I can tell by the pixels and having seen a lot of enterprises in my time.

Dec 6, 2012#72

Jay

Bubble181 said:
Oh, sure. And then you get Enterprise, and what good does hat do to anyone?

Fuck off. Enterprise was perfectly fine.

Oh, so the show was slow during the first season?

Welp, people claim that DS9 was the best series for the Star Trek series and I'll agree with them.... however I endured 4+ seasons of build-up for the last few excellent seasons.

Enterprise's last 2 seasons were amazing.

If you haven't seen them then you're automatically wrong and need not reply.

Dec 6, 2012#73

Bubble181

Jay said:
If you haven't seen them then you're automatically wrong and need not reply.

Well I....oh darn. Fine. Humpf.

Ahem, no, I haven't seen the last seasons, and as far as I know, they could be awesome. And I was actually just joking, jeesh :-P Ragging on Enterprise is the new ragging on Voyager, you know that.

That said, the whole concept of Time Travel in ST is completely borke,d it was borked since the first time they used it, it got even worse the waythey used it in some of the movies, and the first 2 seasons of Enterprise did a good job of completely crapping it up. I can take semi-immortal semi-omnipotent creatures like Q and all that, but the way time travel is handled in ST was the straw that broke the camel's back as far as my immersion and suspension of disbelief goes for ST. Simply because it really breaks the story. It breaks and invalidates or renders useless/wrong/ignorant much of what Kirk and Picard did.

Aside from that, some of the cast members were pretty fun, some of the episodes were good; I like they went more Kirk and less Picard though (of course) here and there they suffered from "needing to top the last one" - but every ST series has had that problem, including TNG and DS9. Enterprise as a concept and most of the story had promise; I could easily forgive a number of the choices they made (esthetics etc), but the time travel thing just broke it for me, personally, to the point that I couldn't really enjoy any episode with any reference to the Temporal Cold War. I know the storyline's supposed to get a lot better, and I'm sure I'll watch it all some day. Just not now

Dec 6, 2012#74

Frank

Jay said:
Fuck off. Enterprise was perfectly fine.

Oh, so the show was slow during the first season?

Welp, people claim that DS9 was the best series for the Star Trek series and I'll agree with them.... however I endured 4+ seasons of build-up for the last few excellent seasons.

Enterprise's last 2 seasons were amazing.

If you haven't seen them then you're automatically wrong and need not reply.

I thought the Xindi stuff was pretty silly too, but the 4th season was definitely a huge improvement right up until the god awful last episode.

Dec 6, 2012#75

Jay

Shut up Fade.

Dec 6, 2012#76

Frank

Really, so you liked the last episode of Enterprise?

I actually dug quite a bit of the first two seasons when the show was all about exploration and shit.

Dec 6, 2012#77

Jay

Did you like the last episode of Firefly?

When shows get canceled, never expect excellence.

Breakups are hard.

Dec 6, 2012#78

Frank

The last episode of Firefly was pretty good actually, it just sucked that it ended. The last episode of Enterprise was a super rushed see how many characters we can off and by the way, it was all a holodeck dream.

Dec 6, 2012#79

Gilgamesh

The last episode of Firefly was called Serenity and it was 2hrs of glorious.

Dec 6, 2012#80

Covar

Enterprise had one of the worst "we probably should have mentioned that sooner" problems I've seen on tv. It also didn't help that I just couldn't care about a single member of the crew. Even Voyager was able to manage that right.

Dec 6, 2012#81

Adam

Trailer for STID comes out today.

Dec 6, 2012#82

Frank

It's a page ago.

Dec 6, 2012#83

Adam

Frank said:
It's a page ago.

Damnit.

Go buy more THQ.

Dec 6, 2012#84

Frank

I just did!

Dec 6, 2012#85

Adam

Big potential spoiler:

This Japanese trailer has about 5 seconds of extra footage at the end that I believe may give away who Cumberbatch is playing, or at least a major plot point.

Dec 6, 2012#86

strawman

Adam said:
Big potential spoiler:

Dec 6, 2012#87

fade

I thought it was pretty clear that's who the villain was from the official trailer. The voiceover is a dead-on Montalban impression, and what other classic character wants revenge on the entire federation?

Dec 6, 2012#88

Adam

fade said:
I thought it was pretty clear that's who the villain was from the official trailer. The voiceover is a dead-on Montalban impression, and what other classic character wants revenge on the entire federation?

I didn't hear any Montalban in the voiceover. Distinctly British versus Montalban's very latino drawl.

Dec 6, 2012#89

fade

We have to disagree, because I can honestly say that Montalban was the first thing that came to my mind before I even put the pieces together. Maybe "dead-on" was a bit much on my part, but it definitely invoked it.

Dec 6, 2012#90

Adam

fade said:
We have to disagree, because I can honestly say that Montalban was the first thing that came to my mind before I even put the pieces together. Maybe "dead-on" was a bit much on my part, but it definitely invoked it.

I think I can hear some of Montalban's cadence in the way he's speaking. Breathy pauses, etc.

Dec 6, 2012#91

fade

Yeah, I just went back and watched it again, and I agree with you. Okay, so maybe by the time I posted, I had romanticized it to Montalban, but I was just coming in here again to say that he has Khan's speech pattern. I guess that was the tell to me. Sorry--I retract "dead on impression" then. My bad.

Dec 6, 2012#92

Adam

fade said:
Yeah, I just went back and watched it again, and I agree with you. Okay, so maybe by the time I posted, I had romanticized it to Montalban, but I was just coming in here again to say that he has Khan's speech pattern. I guess that was the tell to me. Sorry--I retract "dead on impression" then. My bad.

That said, considering the spoiler above, you may just be right.

Dec 6, 2012#93

Adam

And you may also be wrong. I'm thinking it could go either way at this point.

Dec 6, 2012#94

sixpackshaker

I need to brush up on my secondary Trek characters...

Who's ensign hottie?

Dec 6, 2012#95

Dei

I accept the new Star Trek movies because they are flat out said to be an alternate reality. That as far as I am concerned, means they can do whatever the fuck they want. That said, if they kill off Spock the same way as in the original movies, I might get miffed. Though you know that they probably just threw that in to fuck with people. Maybe.

Dec 6, 2012#96

Adam

sixpackshaker said:
I need to brush up on my secondary Trek characters...

Who's ensign hottie?

Dr. Elizabeth Dehner from the second pilot of TOS, "Where no Man Has Gone Before". Lending credence to the "Cumberbatch is Gary Mitchell" theory. That said, I don't think Godlike powers require massive weapons or starships to succeed.

Dec 6, 2012#97

Frank

If it's Khan, it's kind of lame to have a character who's entire reason for needing revenge happened offscreen. That's why the original Khan was rad, Kirk fucked him over and now he's a gonna fuck over Kirk. Star Trek 2 was fucking awesome.

Dec 6, 2012#98

SpecialKO

Maybe he's supposed to be Gary Khan, the new amalgam character Abram's Gang of Four created so they can give fans the finger. :trolol:

Dec 6, 2012#99

Adam

Frank said:
If it's Khan, it's kind of lame to have a character who's entire reason for needing revenge happened offscreen. That's why the original Khan was rad, Kirk fucked him over and now he's a gonna fuck over Kirk. Star Trek 2 was fucking awesome.

If I remember back to Khan's original Space Seed appearance, he was marooned into space in frozen people pods by the government of earth after the Eugenics Wars for 200 years. That may explain his return for vengeance in this trailer.[DOUBLEPOST=1354822846][/DOUBLEPOST]

SpecialKO said:
Maybe he's supposed to be Gary Khan, the new amalgam character Abram's Gang of Four created so they can give fans the finger.

You son of a bitch.

Dec 6, 2012#100

strawman

I wonder if Disney bought Star Wars simply to have something to put up against Star Trek.

Dec 6, 2012#101

Frank

I guess, I dunno. Taking revenge on people hundreds of years later seems kinda flimsy. I'm gonna take a shot in the dark that they may make the whole eugenics thing take place in contemporary times in Star Trek and have this be when Khan was doing his whole terrorist thing. If he's Khan of course.

Dec 6, 2012#102

Adam

stienman said:
I wonder if Disney bought Star Wars simply to have something to put up against Star Trek.

My box office 8 ball suggests "Not likely"

Released Movie Name 1st Weekend US Gross Worldwide Gross Budget
12/7/1979 Star Trek: The Motion Picture $11,926,421 $82,258,456 $139,000,000 $35,000,000
6/4/1982 Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan $14,347,221 $79,912,963 $96,800,000 $12,000,000
6/1/1984 Star Trek III: The Search for Spock $16,673,229 $76,471,046 $87,000,000 $18,000,000
11/26/1986 Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home $16,881,888 $109,713,132 $133,000,000 $24,000,000
6/9/1989 Star Trek V: The Final Frontier $17,375,648 $52,210,049 $70,200,000 $30,000,000
12/6/1991 Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country $18,162,837 $74,888,996 $96,900,000 $27,000,000
11/18/1994 Star Trek: Generations $23,116,394 $75,671,262 $120,000,000 $38,000,000
11/22/1996 Star Trek: First Contact $30,716,131 $92,027,888 $150,000,000 $46,000,000
12/11/1998 Star Trek: Insurrection $22,052,836 $70,187,658 $117,800,000 $70,000,000
12/13/2002 Star Trek: Nemesis $18,513,305 $43,254,409 $67,312,826 $60,000,000

Dec 6, 2012#103

SpecialKO

Wouldn't Disney be more concerned about the new movie franchise taken separately?

The success or failure of the second one will likely make it clear whether the Abram's crew really has resurrected Star Trek as a franchise or whether the first movie succeeded largely in part by being "not a true Trek movie".

Dec 6, 2012#104

BananaHands

Adam said:
And you may also be wrong. I'm thinking it could go either way at this point.

Showin' off dat "O" face.

Dec 6, 2012#105

Adam

BananaHands said:
Showin' off dat "O" face.

Same thought ran through my head Mr Hands.

Dec 6, 2012#106

SpecialKO

BananaHands said:
Showin' off dat "O" face.

Dec 6, 2012#107

fade

"Nemesis"? "Insurrection"? I've never heard of these.

And no matter how much you insist they exist, I still haven't heard of them.

Dec 6, 2012#108

Adam

SpecialKO said:

Resemblance is uncanny.

[DOUBLEPOST=1354824044][/DOUBLEPOST]

fade said:
"Nemesis"? "Insurrection"? I've never heard of these.

And no matter how much you insist they exist, I still haven't heard of them.

Best part of Insurrection is that it rhymes with erection.

Dec 6, 2012#109

SpecialKO

Adam said:
Best part of Insurrection is that it rhymes with erection.

Isn't that what that movie was supposed to be about?

Dec 6, 2012#110

fade

Fucking emotion chip.

Dec 6, 2012#111

SpecialKO

Surprised they didn't try that.

Dec 6, 2012#112

Frank

fade said:
"Nemesis"? "Insurrection"? I've never heard of these.

And no matter how much you insist they exist, I still haven't heard of them.

Nemesis is a good example of offscreen wrongs making for a weak revenge film.

Dec 6, 2012#113

Adam

fade said:
Fucking emotion chip.

That's what it's there for!

Dec 6, 2012#114

SpecialKO

This may be a bit Charlie of me, but I'm hoping he's not Khan, just because Khan's such an iconic non-white character (even if the actor's and character's ancestry did not match).

I love Cumberbatch as an actor, I think he's great, but the character of Khan ending up such a large part of Trek culture that it would seem a shame to not try and maintain that aspect of the character in the new franchise.

Dec 6, 2012#115

Covar

SpecialKO said:
even if the actor's and character's ancestry did not match.

Dec 6, 2012#116

sixpackshaker

You must admit that was a convincing French accent.

Dec 6, 2012#117

Frank

Covar said:
View attachment 9199

True, Michael Dorn isn't actually Klingon.

Dec 6, 2012#118

Bowielee

Frank said:
True, Michael Dorn isn't actually Klingon.

Another example of Hollywood humanwashing.

Dec 6, 2012#119

sixpackshaker

Adam said:
Dr. Elizabeth Dehner from the second pilot of TOS, "Where no Man Has Gone Before". Lending credence to the "Cumberbatch is Gary Mitchell" theory. That said, I don't think Godlike powers require massive weapons or starships to succeed.

I'm embarrassed that I did not recognize Sally Kellerman. Of course I only knew her as the Queen of the B's, when she was middle aged.

Dec 6, 2012#120

North_Ranger

Hi guys what's going... on...

...

Goddammit, another lens flare suckfest?

Dec 6, 2012#121

Cheesy1

North_Ranger said:
Hi guys what's going... on...

...

Goddammit, another lens flare suckfest?

"What do you mean?"

Dec 6, 2012#122

Gilgamesh

I never noticed the Lens Flare honestly didn't bother me one minute through the entire amazing movie.

Dec 6, 2012#123

SpecialKO

Wow, you must have really been enrapt. I love that movie, and I still was annoyed by the lens flare.

Dec 6, 2012#124

GasBandit

Wow. It's like 1994 again, and I just got my first copy of photoshop... LENS FLARE LENS FLARE LENS FLARE

/remembers when Adobe Photoshop fit on 3 floppy disks

Dec 6, 2012#125

Cheesy1

GasBandit said:
/remembers when Adobe Photoshop fit on 3 floppy disks

"And we LIKED it!"

Dec 6, 2012#126

Terrik

Gilgamesh said:
I never noticed the Lens Flare honestly didn't bother me one minute through the entire amazing movie.

I re-watched the movie recently and I have to admit, I didn't notice the lens flare either, even though in the back of my mind I knew it was there.

Dec 7, 2012#127

North_Ranger

How is that even possible? I kept cursing I had left my sunglasses home...

Dec 7, 2012#128

Silent Bob

evilmike said:
Speaking of Star Trek: Into Darkness, here's the first trailer

That looks awesome!

Dec 7, 2012#129

SpecialKO

I do like how the new Star Fleet uniforms seem to be trench coats and scarves for everyone!

Admittedly, it's fairly true to all the TV shows, as I recall.

Dec 7, 2012#130

Bowielee

The new star fleet uniforms are only slightly different from the original series. I'm guessing from the context of the trailer and if we're going with the eugenics war and Kahn, then I'd assume that Kirk and co are infiltrating his group when they're wearing those outfits.

Dec 7, 2012#131

jwhouk

Gentlemen, I don't think we're doing Khan. I believe that's Gary Mitchell, not Khan.

Dec 7, 2012#132

Frank

Japanese footage shows a bit of an iconic scene from the second movie. That's where the Khan theories come from mostly at this point.

Dec 10, 2012#133

Adam

Frank said:
Japanese footage shows a bit of an iconic scene from the second movie. That's where the Khan theories come from mostly at this point.

AintItCool has said that Jerry Goldsmith reused parts of the Khan theme for the 9 minute prologue. And the "Needs of the money quote" is repeated for the iconic scene as seen in the Japanese trailer.

This is all possibly just a fake out but at this point I'd be okay with a Khan, as long as it isn't the exact same story. Also, Prime Directive was brought up as a plot point which should appeal to those old school "Trek is about the philosophical discussion" yobs.

Dec 10, 2012#134

fade

The problem with the Mitchell theory is that he didn't want revenge, he just thought he was better than everyone else. I guess they could throw in some revenge-worthy tidbit.

I guess I'm a yob. I always thought of Trek of any generation (except 2009) as a ethics play thinly wrapped in a scifi veneer.

Dec 10, 2012#135

Adam

fade said:
The problem with the Mitchell theory is that he didn't want revenge, he just thought he was better than everyone else. I guess they could throw in some revenge-worthy tidbit.

I guess I'm a yob. I always thought of Trek of any generation (except 2009) as a ethics play thinly wrapped in a scifi veneer.

That was a major complaint about Trek 2009, which I thought was valid. Especially as a fan of the more thinky-talky TNG era Star Trek, the situations were just a vehicle for more in depth discussion and less Star Warsy.

Dec 10, 2012#136

ScytheRexx

Everyone seems to be latching onto Khan, but have to remember this is a brand new timeline. Things don't have to happen the same way.

What if...

Because of the events that occur in the first movie, the Enterprise does not explore the section of space that drifted the Botany Bay? Maybe, another ship found it first, and when Khan's pod malfunctioned, the other crew was unable to save him like the Enterprise had done. The new villain may very well be an Augment formerly under Khan, still bitter of his "people" losing Earth hundreds of years ago and angry over Khan's death, took over the mantle himself when he and the others were awakened. He took over the ship from the Federation and returned to Earth, intent on taking it back or destroying it. In other words, we don't fight Khan, but still fight his legacy.

Dec 10, 2012#137

strawman

Yeah, I subscribe to the idea that there's still a khan-ish storyline in this universe that will appeal to khan fans while telling a different story.

Dec 10, 2012#138

sixpackshaker

Just as long as Kirk uses the two handed, hammer punch on Kahn, I'll be OK with it...

Dec 10, 2012#139

GasBandit

sixpackshaker said:
Just as long as Kirk uses the two handed, hammer punch on Kahn, I'll be OK with it...

Or the kirk Drop Kick.

Dec 10, 2012#140

SpecialKO

GasBandit said:

While the fist is not actually the greatest thing in the world to hit with, your forearm is even worse. For one thing, there is a major nerve cluster right in the spot that he used to hit that guy...in the shoulder.

Watching old TV fights are hilarious.

Dec 10, 2012#141

Bowielee

ScytheRexx said:
Everyone seems to be latching onto Khan, but have to remember this is a brand new timeline. Things don't have to happen the same way.

What if...

Because of the events that occur in the first movie, the Enterprise does not explore the section of space that drifted the Botany Bay? Maybe, another ship found it first, and when Khan's pod malfunctioned, the other crew was unable to save him like the Enterprise had done. The new villain may very well be an Augment formerly under Khan, still bitter of his "people" losing Earth hundreds of years ago and angry over Khan's death, took over the mantle himself when he and the others were awakened. He took over the ship from the Federation and returned to Earth, intent on taking it back or destroying it. In other words, we don't fight Khan, but still fight his legacy.

Because of the altered timeline, pretty much all of the history is suspect, but we do know that everything prior to Kirk's birth would have to be the same as that is when the timeline split off (unless Spock was running around mucking with the timeline before the Romulans came through, which I highly doubt). So we do know that the Botany Bay would have been out there somewhere, seeing as it and the eugenics war happened prior to the time split.

I do think that from the movie maker's standpoint, if they were going to tie it in any way to the original Botany Bay storyline, they would never include that and not include Kahn. The fan reaction would just be too extreme if they included the augments and not have Kahn.

What I'm really interested in seeing though (and I hope they do expand on it) is how the Vulcan empire is going to react to their homeworld being destroyed.

Dec 10, 2012#142

sixpackshaker

But the eugenics war happened in the 1990's...

I don't remember India being embroiled in such a mess.

Dec 10, 2012#143

Bowielee

sixpackshaker said:
But the eugenics war happened in the 1990's...

I don't remember India being embroiled in such a mess.

See, this is what happens when you don't pay attention to the news.

Dec 10, 2012#144

sixpackshaker

Bowielee said:
See, this is what happens when you don't pay attention to the news.

So I was right when I yelled KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!! at my doctor last year...

Dec 11, 2012#145

Adam

So, apparently Paramount has announced that Cumberbatch is playing John Harrison.

http://www.movieswithbutter.com/blo...darkness-alive-eves-character-revealed-409897

(Left to right) Zachary Quinto is Spock, Benedict Cumberbatch is John Harrison and Chris Pine is Kirk in STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS from Paramount Pictures and Skydance Productions.

John Harrison is the guy that is nearly suffocated by Khan at the beginning of Space Seed.

Also, we learn who Alice Eve is playing

Carol Marcus, from Wrath of Khan and father of Kirk's son from that movie and Search for Spock.

Dec 11, 2012#146

bhamv3

JOOOOOHN!!!

Hmm, seems to lose something in the transition.

Dec 11, 2012#147

Frank

That's super anti-climactic.

He's just...one of the augments?

Hopefully that's just misdirection.

Dec 11, 2012#148

strawman

I'm still waiting for ~~Sylar~~Spock to slice someone's head off.

Dec 11, 2012#149

SpecialKO

Frank said:
That's super anti-climactic.

He's just...one of the augments?

Hopefully that's just misdirection.

Given Abram's love of red herrings, I'm assuming that this (plus the Dr. Marcus thing) confirms Khan.

Dec 11, 2012#150

Covar

Adam said:
So, apparently Paramount has announced that Cumberbatch is playing John Harrison.

http://www.movieswithbutter.com/blo...darkness-alive-eves-character-revealed-409897

(Left to right) Zachary Quinto is Spock, Benedict Cumberbatch is John Harrison and Chris Pine is Kirk in STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS from Paramount Pictures and Skydance Productions.

John Harrison is the guy that is nearly suffocated by Khan at the beginning of Space Seed.

Also, we learn who Alice Eve is playing

Carol Marcus, from Wrath of Khan and father of Kirk's son from that movie and Search for Spock.

Hey look, starfleet uniforms. Definitely could have used more of those in the teaser.

Dec 11, 2012#151

sixpackshaker

Man, how thin are Spock and Kirk in that photo? Cumberbatch looks down right buff next to them. And from Sherlock he looks as thin as hell.

Dec 11, 2012#152

strawman

CGI ABS.

Dec 11, 2012#153

ScytheRexx

Going to laugh so much if I end up being right.

Dec 11, 2012#154

@Li3n

Adam said:
Also, we learn who Alice Eve is playing

Carol Marcus, from Wrath of Khan and father of Kirk's son from that movie and Search for Spock.

I wonder if they'll keep the Kirk is pregnant storyline...

:rimshot:

Dec 12, 2012#155

Frank

Adam said:
So, apparently Paramount has announced that Cumberbatch is playing John Harrison.

http://www.movieswithbutter.com/blo...darkness-alive-eves-character-revealed-409897

(Left to right) Zachary Quinto is Spock, Benedict Cumberbatch is John Harrison and Chris Pine is Kirk in STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS from Paramount Pictures and Skydance Productions.

John Harrison is the guy that is nearly suffocated by Khan at the beginning of Space Seed.

Also, we learn who Alice Eve is playing

Carol Marcus, from Wrath of Khan and father of Kirk's son from that movie and Search for Spock.

Where did you get that thing about Harrison being in Space Seed? Memory Alpha has nothing for a John Harrison (outside of the new movie stuff) and Memory Alpha is maintained by a God awful amount of OCD Trek nerds and I can't imagine it would have missed a character.

Hopefully that means he's an original character and they're not retreading anything yet.

Also,

there's Klingons in the actual movie this time.

Dec 12, 2012#156

fade

rumply or smooth?

Dec 12, 2012#157

Frank

fade said:
rumply or smooth?

There's reports that they're rumply, but they wear their hair like OG ones.

Dec 12, 2012#158

SpecialKO

Original Gangster Klingons?

Dec 12, 2012#159

SpecialKO

Looks more like early-90s metal Klingons to me.

Dec 12, 2012#160

Bowielee

SpecialKO said:
Looks more like early-90s metal Klingons to me.

I thought one of the points of being in a band was to get laid.

Dec 12, 2012#161

sixpackshaker

Bowielee said:
I thought one of the points of being in a band was to get laid.

Take a look to the right ...[DOUBLEPOST=1355341372][/DOUBLEPOST]And they are not even playing instruments... karaoke and air (axe) guitar, AND at least one of them will get laid...

Dec 15, 2012#162

evilmike

The mystery of Benedict Cumberbatch's character is finally revealed

He's Lots-O'-Huggin' Bear.

Dec 15, 2012#163

Bowielee

sixpackshaker said:
Take a look to the right ...[DOUBLEPOST=1355341372][/DOUBLEPOST]And they are not even playing instruments... karaoke and air (axe) guitar, AND at least one of them will get laid...

It's still kind saddest of the sad.

Dec 17, 2012#164

evilmike

The full trailer is available

Dec 17, 2012#165

BananaHands

Unf.

Dec 17, 2012#166

Dei

The played the a part of the movie in front of The Hobbit, looked pretty awesome.

Dec 17, 2012#167

Sparhawk

evilmike said:
The full trailer is available

And it's gone... crud. It did not play in front of the showing of Hobbit that I saw last night. Crap.

Dec 17, 2012#168

Adam

MOTHERFUCKING STASIS PODS

Even if Cumberbatch isn't playing Khan, he's floating around here somewhere. Benecio del Toro's going to pop up at the end and say something like "Revenge is a dish best served FUCKIN COLLLLD."

And that's fit for print.

Dec 17, 2012#169

evilmike

Sparhawk said:
And it's gone... crud. It did not play in front of the showing of Hobbit that I saw last night. Crap.

Also, the first 9 minutes

And finally, now with Ponies!

Dec 17, 2012#170

Telephius

Man I would be hating to sit beside that girl in the theatre if she nerdgasms een during the movie.

Feb 3, 2013#171

evilmike

New TV Spot

Feb 3, 2013#172

ThatNickGuy

Welp, I know what I'm seeing on my birthday (May 20th).

Feb 4, 2013#173

fade

ThatNickGuy said:
Welp, I know what I'm seeing on my birthday (May 20th).

Hookers and blow?

Feb 4, 2013#174

ThatNickGuy

fade said:
Hookers and blow?

Well okay, after that.

Feb 4, 2013#175

Adam

Blackjack?

Feb 4, 2013#176

sixpackshaker

Go to the Prom?

Feb 4, 2013#177

bhamv3

sixpackshaker said:
Go to the Prom?

"This time, it's gonna go great. This time..."

*prom date shows up with a large mechanical device called the Fist-o-Matic*

Feb 5, 2013#178

Silent Bob

bhamv3 said:
"This time, it's gonna go great. This time..."

*prom date shows up with a large mechanical device called the Fist-o-Matic*

Mar 9, 2013#179

evilmike

Another new trailer

Mar 10, 2013#180

jwhouk

1. Didn't see the reboot.
2. For some reason, I'm suddenly feeling better about this version after seeing this trailer.

Mar 10, 2013#181

Bowielee

Personally, I loved the reboot. Sure, there are quite a few convenient coincidences, but overall, I liked it.

But seriously, Dear JJ Abrams, enough with the lens flare already.

Mar 10, 2013#182

strawman

Bowielee said:
Dear JJ Abrams, enough with the lens flare already.

In space no one can see you're shooting with a 33 element lens... Until they view the footage...

Mar 10, 2013#183

sixpackshaker

stienman said:
In space no one can see you're shooting with a 33 element lens... Until they view the footage...

But how does he shoot CGI with a 33 element lens...?

Mar 10, 2013#184

Sparhawk

sixpackshaker said:
But how does he shoot CGI with a 33 element lens...?

He's JJ Abrams, we're just looking though his eyes. It's how he really sees life.

Mar 10, 2013#185

jwhouk

Then he needs to see an optometrist.

Mar 10, 2013#186

sixpackshaker

jwhouk said:
Then he needs to see an optometrist.

I hear flares are a side effect of lasik.

Mar 10, 2013#187

GasBandit

sixpackshaker said:
I hear flares are a side effect of lasik.

Nah, starbursts maybe, but no lens flares.

Mar 11, 2013#188

Terrik

It almost looks...I dunno...too action-y. Is that possible?

Mar 11, 2013#189

jwhouk

That one reviewer on Yahoo obviously doesn't remember much about TOS, because Kirk was routinely pushing the limits when it came to the Prime Directive.

And you do have to wonder - is the USS Enterprise amphibious?

Mar 11, 2013#190

bhamv3

Conceivable. Obviously it'd have its own oxygen supply, and a hull that can resist air pressure from within could plausibly also resist water pressure from outside.

How well do warp nacelles work underwater though?

Mar 11, 2013#191

Frank

They don't or wouldn't need to, the warp nacelles are where the warp coils are housed and that shit isn't being used inside of an atmosphere, let alone under water.

Mar 11, 2013#192

strawman

It's risky to engage warp drive in the upper atmosphere, and suicidal closer to the planets surface:

http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Warp_drive

Pretty sure you wouldn't want to engage it while under water. Fortunately thrusters aren't based on warp technology.

There are two basic needs for waterproofing. Water is a solvent, so anything used must be non corroding in water. The second is water ingress through holes and crack.

Presumably it is both watertight (since its space tight) and it isn't easily corroded because it was built largely on earth, and can readily stay inside the atmosphere, which is heavily laden with water vapor.

Therefore I expect it is waterproof enough to dive to some depth. The crush strength of the hull comes into play at that point. But being able to dive to the few hundred feet necessary to submerge the whole thing shouldn't be that difficult.

But I imagine it'll come up in the movie. When has a Star Trek movie been made where someone didn't question the ships ability to perform some maneuver or feat? The enterprise is as much a character as Kirk is.

Mar 11, 2013#193

Ravenpoe

Fry: Professor, how many atmospheres of pressure can the ship take?

Farnsworth: Well, it's a spaceship, so I'd say anywhere between zero and one.

Mar 11, 2013#194

fade

stienman said:
It's risky to engage warp drive in the upper atmosphere, and suicidal closer to the planets surface:

http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Warp_drive

Pretty sure you wouldn't want to engage it while under water. Fortunately thrusters aren't based on warp technology.

There are two basic needs for waterproofing. Water is a solvent, so anything used must be non corroding in water. The second is water ingress through holes and crack.

Presumably it is both watertight (since its space tight) and it isn't easily corroded because it was built largely on earth, and can readily stay inside the atmosphere, which is heavily laden with water vapor.

Therefore I expect it is waterproof enough to dive to some depth. The crush strength of the hull comes into play at that point. But being able to dive to the few hundred feet necessary to submerge the whole thing shouldn't be that difficult.

But I imagine it'll come up in the movie. When has a Star Trek movie been made where someone didn't question the ships ability to perform some maneuver or feat? The enterprise is as much a character as Kirk is.

It's directly proportional to the number of times Scotty asks the ship to hold herself together.

Mar 11, 2013#195

AshburnerX

Consider it's entirely conceivable that you'd run into water in space (though unlikely, due to temperatures in some areas), it's likely that it's liquid tight. I know some shuttles are at any rate, because they used one in water in Voyager (in a very, VERY dumb episode).

That being said, I doubt you'd ever want to do it. Moving through water at a too high a speed would rip the ship in half from the resistance of the water.

Mar 11, 2013#196

Frank

In one of the old technical manuals my dad had when I was younger I remember reading something about how the ships aren't meant to operate in atmospheres at all. They obviously abandoned that kind of stuff since then.

Mar 11, 2013#197

Ravenpoe

Frank said:
In one of the old technical manuals my dad had when I was younger I remember reading something about how the ships aren't meant to operate in atmospheres at all. They obviously abandoned that kind of stuff since then.

I have no idea how the engines on the enterprise are supposed to work, but it doesn't look like it should be able to generate any kind of lift.

Mar 11, 2013#198

strawman

Ravenpoe said:
I have no idea how the engines on the enterprise are supposed to work, but it doesn't look like it should be able to generate any kind of lift.

They've got a matter/antimatter energy source for virtually unlimited power, and plasma thrusters.

But even if that weren't enough, they can generate gravity.

No, none of this is very plausible, but that's why it's science fiction.

Mar 11, 2013#199

Frank

Well, they have warp drive and sub-light impulse (which uses a huge magnetic coil in conjunction with the warp drives mass altering to propel the ship at tremendous speeds) and it has maneuvering thrusters (which are basically just as we have now, only Star Trek super advanced). The whole messing with the fabric of space thing the warp drive and the impulse engines do would probably be a shitty idea to do in an atmosphere. They could use the thrusters inside an atmosphere but the ship design itself would lead me to believe that that's the last thing you would want to do. Imagine the stresses on the neck pylon thing on most Federation ships in gravity.

Mar 11, 2013#200

bhamv3

Ravenpoe said:
I have no idea how the engines on the enterprise are supposed to work, but it doesn't look like it should be able to generate any kind of lift.

"On my mark, fire all photon torpedoes straight down."

Mar 11, 2013#201

Ravenpoe

Frank said:
Well, they have warp drive and sub-light impulse (which uses a huge magnetic coil in conjunction with the warp drives mass altering to propel the ship at tremendous speeds) and it has maneuvering thrusters (which are basically just as we have now, only Star Trek super advanced). The whole messing with the fabric of space thing the warp drive and the impulse engines do would probably be a shitty idea to do in an atmosphere. They could use the thrusters inside an atmosphere but the ship design itself would lead me to believe that that's the last thing you would want to do. Imagine the stresses on the neck pylon thing on most Federation ships in gravity.

They've got shields that can keep their internal air pressure inside during a hull breach, I'm sure they can extend a shield around the ship to protect it from air turbulence.

Or just reverse polarity on the deflector dish. That thing can do anything.

Mar 11, 2013#202

AshburnerX

Frank said:
They could use the thrusters inside an atmosphere but the ship design itself would lead me to believe that that's the last thing you would want to do. Imagine the stresses on the neck pylon thing on most Federation ships in gravity.

They apparently build ships that can land on planets (like the Intrepid class), and shuttles do it somehow without using thrusters for getting around in atmospheres, so there is clearly something keeping it going. My best guesses?

- Structural Integrity field keeps the thing together from normal forces of movement.
- Deflector dish moves gases away from the ship, essentially keeping it in a vacuum bubble.
- The shields do the same thing as the deflector dish.

Mar 12, 2013#203

GasBandit

There are structural integrity fields to keep the ship from shaking itself apart when maneuvering/taking damage, and other shit too. Yes, they're stretching disbelief to the breaking point in the name of "rule of cool," but really...

Bounce a graviton particle beam
Off the main deflector dish
That's the way we do things, lad
We're makin' shit up as we wish
The Klingons and the Romulans
Pose no threat to us
'Cause if we find we're in a bind
We just make some shit up.

Honestly, I don't think it's consistent with canon for the Enterprise to be submersible, but let's be honest, it's not the most egregiously retarded thing star trek writers have pulled out of their ass.

Mar 12, 2013#204

fade

GasBandit said:
There are structural integrity fields to keep the ship from shaking itself apart when maneuvering/taking damage, and other shit too.

Only good guy ships have them though. The bad guy ships will literally explode into nothingness with a single well-placed, but difficult to launch torpedo. Apparently, the warhead is charged with desperation.

On the physics side, it always bugged me when people say, "there's no gravity! You can make the ship any shape you want!" Yeah, well there's still inertia in space.

Mar 12, 2013#205

sixpackshaker

/supernerdglasses

From the episode Space Seed you can see that Khan's ship is a Nuclear Sub fitted with some form of thrusters... the thought behind that was as rugged and air tight a sub is, it could handle outer space. So in that time line some of the first sleeper ships were just converted subs.

Mar 13, 2013#206

AshburnerX

fade said:
On the physics side, it always bugged me when people say, "there's no gravity! You can make the ship any shape you want!" Yeah, well there's still inertia in space.

No, there isn't, thanks to Inertial Dampers. Basically, these things make warp travel possible as depicted in the show, as they keep everyone from dying the instant they jump to warp, as they'd slam in the walls the moment it activated and turn them into chunky salsa. It also serves as a convenient excuse for why the heroes don't run when they really don't have any reason to fight.

I'm sure they break like 16 rules of physics.

Mar 13, 2013#207

GasBandit

AshburnerX said:
No, there isn't, thanks to Inertial Dampers. Basically, these things make warp travel possible as depicted in the show, as they keep everyone from dying the instant they jump to warp, as they'd slam in the walls the moment it activated and turn them into chunky salsa. It also serves as a convenient excuse for why the heroes don't run when they really don't have any reason to fight.

I'm sure they break like 16 rules of physics.

Inertial dampeners just keep the contents of the ship from experiencing inertia with respect to the perspective of outside the ship - the structural integrity field is what allows spaceships to be oddly shaped such as enterprise without the stresses of the engines shearing off their pylons or the torsion from maneuvering causing the hull to rupture.

Mar 13, 2013#208

Frank

GasBandit said:
There are structural integrity fields to keep the ship from shaking itself apart when maneuvering/taking damage, and other shit too. Yes, they're stretching disbelief to the breaking point in the name of "rule of cool," but really...

Bounce a graviton particle beam
Off the main deflector dish
That's the way we do things, lad
We're makin' shit up as we wish
The Klingons and the Romulans
Pose no threat to us
'Cause if we find we're in a bind
We just make some shit up.

Honestly, I don't think it's consistent with canon for the Enterprise to be submersible, but let's be honest, it's not the most egregiously retarded thing star trek writers have pulled out of their ass.

Eh, Voyager can cruise around in a liquid universe full of Borg killing CG abominations, I'm sure the thing can handle being under water.

Mar 13, 2013#209

Espy

You guys and your technical explanations when it's obvious that...

Mar 21, 2013#210

evilmike

New international trailer

Mar 21, 2013#211

strawman

Me likey.

Mar 21, 2013#212

jwhouk

Well.

I guess we'll be going to the 1701-A designation a little bit earlier than planned...

Mar 21, 2013#213

sixpackshaker

I love when good diction=evil.

Mar 21, 2013#214

ThatNickGuy

You're welcome.

Mar 22, 2013#215

Frank

I dunno, I still hope it isn't as dumb as the first movie but it does give me confidence that he'll pull off an excellent Star Wars movie.

Also, Alice Eve....that's.....umm....great. Real great. She looks pretty fantastic.

Apr 16, 2013#216

strawman

There's a new trailer!

It's good!

Apr 16, 2013#217

sixpackshaker

ThatNickGuy said:
You're welcome.

In the future underwear does not have pockets either.

Apr 16, 2013#218

strawman

sixpackshaker said:
In the future underwear does not have pockets either.

Pockets are for people who need keys, personal communication/information devices, and medications.

I'd like to think we don't need those things in the future...

Apr 16, 2013#219

sixpackshaker

stienman said:
Pockets are for people who need keys, personal communication/information devices, and medications.

I'd like to think we don't need those things in the future...

Protection...

Apr 16, 2013#220

HCGLNS

Yet bra technology has sadly not advanced either.

Apr 16, 2013#221

strawman

sixpackshaker said:
Protection...

I wear my phaser at my hip.

:awesome:

Apr 16, 2013#222

phil

calling it:

The bad guy is Picard. Don't know how, but it is.

Apr 17, 2013#223

strawman

Apr 17, 2013#224

SpecialKO

phil said:
calling it:

The bad guy is Picard. Don't know how, but it is.

You might really, really be right.

Though that looks like an Excelsior-class ship that's the size of an Ambassador-class. So, who knows.

Apr 17, 2013#225

bhamv3

phil said:
calling it:

The bad guy is Picard. Don't know how, but it is.

Wait, you mean the guy played by Benedict Cummerbund?

Mind blown...

Apr 17, 2013#226

strawman

BUT HE HAS SUCH GLORIOUS HAIR!

Apr 17, 2013#227

phil

Watch the next Gen episode where young picard gets stabbed in the heart. Com pair the hair, stienman. Compare the hair.

Apr 17, 2013#228

GasBandit

Related reading.

Six suspects for the villain's identity

Apr 17, 2013#229

Espy

...Picard?

I'm not a big Star Trek dude but... uh... what?

Apr 17, 2013#230

phil

Opening scene:

A high over passing shot of future sanfran. People going about their business, large mass walking in same direction. One man walks against the flow, making his way through the foot traffic.

Explosion! People start to panic and run in the opposite direction. Person of interest turns corner and walks into nearby cafe. Patrons are looking out window, walking out door to investigate. POI walks to counter and gestures for the attention of the worker.

Worker (mix of surprise and distress)
Can I help you?

Person of interest
Tea. Earl grey. Hot. (consider changing hot to cold to show main divergence point between good and evil Picard)

Apr 26, 2013#231

Dei

If you look you can find spoiler reviews from the Aussie release. I'm not going to post who the villain is, if you want to know, search for it.

Apr 26, 2013#232

Jay

Hope the movie is better than the video game.

Apr 26, 2013#233

Bowielee

Jay said:
Hope the movie is better than the video game.

A movie tie in game sucks????????????? That's new and unusual.

Apr 26, 2013#234

Hailey Knight

Looked at a spoiler review because I don't care much about Star Trek. Benedict Cumberpatch's character in spoiler.

It's Khan. Which is kind of not interesting in a new continuity where no other shit with Khan ever went down.

Apr 26, 2013#235

bhamv3

Huh. Oh well, it would've been cool for it to be Picard though.

Apr 26, 2013#236

filmfanatic

So much for my hopes of it being

Gary Mitchell...

May 2, 2013#237

fade

Quotemander Prime said:
Looked at a spoiler review because I don't care much about Star Trek. Benedict Cumberpatch's character in spoiler.

It's Khan. Which is kind of not interesting in a new continuity where no other shit with Khan ever went down.

If this is true, I still stand by my teaser trailer guess from way back, based on Cumberbatch's unusual but recognizable speech pattern. Not the same accent, but the same pacing.

May 14, 2013#238

jwhouk

Okay, I'm actually ready to see Into Darkness.

Yes, I didn't see Star Trek (the reboot) until just now.

May 15, 2013#239

Charlie Don't Surf

I thought it showed several times that his name is "John Henderson" or something completely banal

May 15, 2013#240

Covar

Man I hope he's not an existing character. There are plenty of things that can be done in the Star Trek universes (because there's two now

) that you don't need to just rehash a 31 year old movie, or a 44 year old television show.[DOUBLEPOST=1368625351][/DOUBLEPOST]With luck I'll be seeing this movie tonight at the IMAX downtown. Can't wait

May 15, 2013#241

jwhouk

Khan's pretty much the logical choice.

May 15, 2013#242

Fun Size

I've decided that I need to convince my boss that we need to see this on Friday as a team building exercise.

May 15, 2013#243

fade

When I was a postdoc, the professor I worked for took us all out to Revenge of the Sith. It was awesome. And this is super workaholic man who made full prof at 38.

May 16, 2013#244

jwhouk

Oh.

Uhm, guys?

The entire plot for ST:ID is actually available, online.

No, I'm not kidding.

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Khan_Noonien_Singh_(alternate_reality)[/spoiler]

May 16, 2013#245

Dei

Well it's been out for a bit in other countries. Not surprising.

May 16, 2013#246

jwhouk

To me, it just sounds/smells like

STII:TWOK all over again.

May 16, 2013#247

Covar

jwhouk said:
To me, it just sounds/smells like

STII:TWOK all over again.

trust me its not. There are some parallels (actually my least favorite parts), but it manages to be fresh.

May 17, 2013#248

Shawn

I'll see it in three months. Again, not because I think it's only worth a rent, but because we don't want to bring our newborn into the theater.

May 17, 2013#249

Terrik

Comes out on the 28th in China. I read on a couple websites that this was the first trek offered in China. Seems they weren't paying attention because I saw the first one in a theater in Tianjin. I'm pretty stoked for it.

May 17, 2013#250

Frank

The movie was enjoyable, like the first. But just as dumb as the first movie was. Orci and Kurtzman are fucking dumb writers. They write dumb movies. That being said, again, I still enjoyed myself.

This post from Neogaf goes nitpickingly into why it was so dumb. This guy wanted a Star Trekky Star Trek movie. I don't agree with all his points, but there are a great many I do agree with.

I was! But I'll quote you anyway.

First, let me get the good parts out of the way:

1. Special effects were great
2. Cumberbatch was good given the material, though I'd be hesitant to say he did a good job. He seemed to be held back by the script more than he did to help it.
3. The cast are good in their respective roles, and this kind of carries the movie.

Um...that's it I think. The new warp effect is better than the first movie's, but it still doesn't beat the classic flashing nacelles of the TV shows. Bring that back, please.

I gotta, say, I was bored for most of the film. Dialogue was clunky too. So, if I had to sum up the movie in two words, they'd be the following: dumb and pointless.

Dumb because:
1. The numerous gigantic plot-holes. It's even worse than the first movie in this regard. These act to take me out of the film and prevent me from enjoying it. I'm going to post several that jumped out at me:
*I have no idea why the Enterprise is underwater. Why is the Enterprise underwater?
*If a tribe of indigenous people have a settlement near a volcano that threatens to destroy their planet, I don't think taking something from them and making them run a couple hundred feet will guarantee their safety from debris before the eruption (apparently it does in this case).
*I find it weird that Starfleet has a specific regulation that says you must meet in a specific location after a specific event.
*Side problem to a broader point: You can transport from Earth to Qo'noS? Really? So why not transport there and transport back? This'll open a whole lot of narrative problems in the future.
*Um...how was Scotty able to just waltz into a top secret security base without anyone knowing?
*How is it this easy to infiltrate the Klingon homeworld?
*Earth's/Enterprise sensors can reach all the way to Qo'noS?
*Just that whole final battle. There are right behind Earth's moon, yet the film acts like they are all the way in uncharted space. Why is NOBODY helping them?
*Why didn't the Enterprise crew call for help at any point during their conflict?
*Why didn't Spock call for assistance while the ship was falling into Earth's atmosphere?
*Why did Spock and the bridge crew have to stay on the ship? They are right above Earth! They can just abandon the ship in the escape pods! Why are they staying on the ship? Why are they trying to rescue it?
*Where is everybody else during all of this? Why is there virtually no activity around Earth?
*How does the Enterprise go from being orbiting the moon to falling in Earth's atmosphere?
You get the point. The list goes on.
2. Transporter and warp speeds seem to be entirely arbitrary in this film. Seriously, it's like they have no meaning.
3. The entirely pointless scene in which Carol Marcus takes off her clothes. Come on, guys. Grow up a little.
4. Get the women out of the dresses/skirts. When Uhura beamed down on the very windy and fast moving vehicle with that dress, I rolled my eyes. Ugh.
5. Ripping off the ending to The Wrath of Khan. No imagination. No creativity. No originality. It's like they didn't know how to end the movie, so they brought out the script to Wrath of Khan and re-wrote the ending. I'm sorry, but it doesn't work. The friendship has to build up for a long time. More on this in a moment. Speaking of which...
6. During the opening, I realized that these were a bunch of kids in charge of the ship. It's hard to take them seriously.
7. Kirk was demoted because he wasn't "ready for the chair." You promoted him from cadet to captain! Of course he wasn't, you morons.
8. Klingons looked liked they were dipped in chocolate. Bring back their classic design.
9. The plot was just confusing in general. Why did Khan put his people in the torpedoes? And why did Admiral Marcus give them all to Kirk? Did he just assume the Klingons would destroy whatever torpedoes Kirk didn't use?
10. What's with Earth? What happened to the smooth combination of the future and simplicity found on the TV shows?
11. For the most part, clunky dialogue.
12. Action with little substance to support it.
13. Three-hundred year old technology being "beyond" Bones.
14. Spock's "KHHAAANNN" scream. Made me cringe.
15. For all its action, there was no good tension in this film. At all. Abrams needs to watch The Wrath of Khan to know how to create some good tension.
16. Kirk’s death scene was useless. His revival wasn’t earned, nor was his death warranted because there was no reason they had to save the ship.
17. Spock and Uhura. Ew.

This movie was pointless because:
I cannot, for the life of me, give anybody a reason to watch it. Seriously. By the end of the film Khan is in a cryotube and the only lasting effect for the Enterprise crew is the addition of Carol Marcus, which can be explained in a sentence in the next movie.

Everything – aside from the special effects – was done better in The Wrath of Khan. The story, characters, executions of its themes, tension, and yes, even the action was better in TWoK. I never came close to feeling anything during STiD than when the Enterprise maneuvered up behind the Reliant in TWoK. It’s a smart film, whose themes of old age and “paradise lost” evolve and play out naturally over the course of the movie. It makes numerous literary allusions – both direct and indirect – to three novels of classic literature: Paradise Lost, King Lear, and Moby Dick. All of which are incorporated seamlessly into the film’s narrative. I’m not going to go over all this extensively, but SFDebris does a pretty good job of it here. Star Trek into Darkness is The Wrath of Khan's dumb, mind-numbing younger sibling. You may as well re-watch TWoK than see this film.

Star Trek into Darkness takes many elements from previous Trek canon without any regard for the situations in which they were used and the situations that made them work. Section 31 is an example of such an element. However, I won’t go over all of that, only the main element borrowed from the Prime Universe, which is that of Kirk versus Khan.

In The Wrath of Khan, the battle between Kirk and Khan – which has far more tension, drama, and satisfying action than anything in STiD – was a battle of wits between two men. The movie is a progression of one outsmarting the other. Indeed, the only reason why Kirk won in the end was because Khan was inexperienced in interstellar battle.

Star Trek into Darkness just has Kirk being smacked around by Marcus and Khan like he doesn't know what he's doing. There's no satisfaction in their interaction or their fighting. Some of this is due to the way the story is setup, some of it is the writing, some of this is because of Cumberbatch’s performance and the fact that it can't measure up to the nuance of Montalban’s portrayal of the same character.

But it's mainly because Star Trek into Darkness doesn't try to do anything new with Kirk and Khan's relationship that the makes the movie pointless. Now, I looked up spoilers to the movie before I saw it, so I knew how it was going to end. What I didn't know was that Kirk and Khan would team up, if ever briefly. I really, really wish the movie had gone fully in that direction only for the two to depart later on. But no. It has to rehash old conflicts in the same old ways on dumber terms, assuming viewers can't handle a more sophisticated approach.

Even if you didn't want the two to team up, it's not like the concept of Kirk and Khan fighting each other can't be done in a different way. DS9 took the idea of Kirk versus Khan and made it its own, and in the end was just as compelling, in my opinion, but for entirely different reasons. Sisko versus Eddington plays out over two episodes, DS9’s fifth season episode "For the Uniform," and the sixth season episode "Blaze of Glory." "For the Uniform" progresses similarly to The Wrath of Khan in that the episode plays out with each man outsmarting the other, and it even has its own literary allusion with Les Misérables. It's different, though, for how it resolves itself and the reason for the conflict between the men. Sisko goes after Eddington because he feels responsible for Eddington's betrayal – and any consequences that resulted thereof – and blames himself for not seeing the betrayal coming. The only reason why Sisko wins in the end is because he goes to morally questionable grounds that Eddington never expected. By the end of the episode, you could argue that the only difference between the two men was that Sisko did it for his uniform. "Blaze of Glory" closes out their relationship in a way that makes you feel sympathetic for Eddington. Something you can't say for Khan.

The movie tries to make Khan sympathetic, but it moves too fast and focuses too much on its explosions and action to allow that narrative thread – or any narrative thread, really – room to breathe. There's no point where the movie allows viewers – or the characters – to slow down, sit back and reflect on its events. There's always some urgent thing going on in the background that distracts from the significance of what's going on. This is to the hindrance of the relationship between Spock and Kirk, as the movie relies more on audience's knowledge of their prior relationship from TOS and its movies, as well as pop culture knowledge, to carry the majority of its weight because it has no chance to give them sufficient room for that relationship to develop.

The death scene doesn't work for a variety of reasons, but chief among them are two: Kirk and Spock haven't known each other for that long, and its lacking the context of one of TWoK's broader themes. As I said in the previous paragraph, the two haven't known each other for that long. Their relationship has to be given more time to evolve and develop for that scene to have the same kind of emotional resonance.

From the beginning of The Wrath of Khan, viewers are presented with the idea of a no-win scenario, and how Kirk has never really faced one. Khan doesn’t kill Kirk, but he hurts him. The death scene with Spock resonates because that is Kirk's no-win scenario. He loses his best friend. From Spock’s death, Kirk learns that aging is simply part of the cycle of rebirth and death. Looking over the planet the genesis device created, he says, "I feel young." He decides to formally return to the captain's chair by the end of the movie. In Star Trek into Darkness, the death scene holds no lesson for Kirk. It holds no consequence for his character, or Spock’s. It's something forgotten by the end of the film.

It's not a bad movie. It's okay. In the end this film should be pretty much expected from a man who thought Star Trek was too "philosophical" and "debate-driven." That’s pretty much all I have say about it. Maybe I’ll have more to say after I see it a second time on Sunday. For anybody who sees this film, I'd recommend just to watch The Wrath of Khan instead, unless you're looking for something to do.

I watched this right after seeing an episode of Stargate: Atlantis, and the difference in how each respects the viewer's intelligence made me more annoyed by the movie's sloppy plot and less-than-satisfactory execution.

I just want a good Star Trek movie.

My spoilered thoughts.

The Khan scream by Spock was just terribly goofy. It was also a pretty shitty parallel to Wrath of Khan. The friendship angle and such. In Wrath of Khan, these guys had known each other for decades. I like Pine and Quinto as Kirk and Spock individually, but they don't have the onscreen friendship chemistry that OG Spock, Kirk and McCoy had (which is pretty amazing since no one liked Shatner).

The magic blood that raises the dead might be the dopiest plot device ever. Especially when they just lock away a whole room full of magic elixir blood at the end of the movie. No one's interested in magic cure-all resurrection blood? Fuck off.

There's numerous inconsistencies and plot hole ridiculousness that I could go into, but the NeoGaf post goes through most of them and I can't expect anyone expected better of Orci and Kurtzman (especially after they added Lindlof to the mix....)

I have so much negative to say about the movie...but I still enjoyed it, as little sense as that makes.

May 17, 2013#251

ThatNickGuy

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/vid...st&utm_medium=index_carousel&utm_campaign=all

MovieBob tears it apart and good. He reveals the big spoiler in it, as well.

And honestly? Now that I've heard the spoiler that I was dreading to be true? Fuck it. I'm not going to bother with this fan-service, rehashing bullshit. They had the perfect opportunity to do something new and innovative (which is like 90% of Trek's original point) and they just went with lifting the best of Trek, which will only bring about comparisons to the superior work.

May 17, 2013#252

BananaHands

Shawnacy said:
I'll see it in three months. Again, not because I think it's only worth a rent, but because we don't want to bring our newborn into the theater.

You sir, are a gentleman.

May 17, 2013#253

ThatNickGuy

Wait a minute Frank.

Did you say that Kirk sacrifices himself at the end and they manage to bring him back to life, too?

Oh for fucks sake. My interest in this movie has dropped into the negatives.

May 17, 2013#254

Frank

ThatNickGuy said:
Wait a minute Frank.

Did you say that Kirk sacrifices himself at the end and they manage to bring him back to life, too?

Oh for fucks sake. My interest in this movie has dropped into the negatives.

Yes, because and I spoiler

Khan has magic elixir blood that cures all diseases and brings dead tissue back to life. 20th century genetic engineering at it's finest.

May 17, 2013#255

ThatNickGuy

May 17, 2013#256

DarkAudit

*puts cash back in pocket* :thumbsdown:

May 17, 2013#257

Frank

ThatNickGuy said:
They had the perfect opportunity to do something new and innovative (which is like 90% of Trek's original point) and they just went with lifting the best of Trek, which will only bring about comparisons to the superior work.

This is kind of what pisses me off the most. Abbrams has been claiming since the movie began filming that Khan wouldn't be in it and it's a new universe with chances to tell new stories. He's a fucking shitty liar. Lazy nonsensical parallels and rushed dopey plot devices is all he can manage. I don't care if the next movie bombs because he isn't in charge of it (I hope he isn't), it will probably be a better God damn movie.

Let him go make Star Wars dumber (if possible).

May 17, 2013#258

fade

I saw him on The Daily Show, and he kept going on about how he never liked Trek, and how he was making Trek for people like him who just couldn't get into it.

May 17, 2013#259

ThatNickGuy

He made a demo reel for Star Wars. That is all.

May 18, 2013#260

Adam

Just got back. It just wasn't that great. Parts sure were exciting, but holy fucking lens flare overdose. The 3d was incredibly irritating. The theme was constantly overused. Lines were cribbed directly from its much better inspiration. Will think on it more, but its definitely not a thinking persons Star Trek.

Fucking lens flares, Jesus.

May 18, 2013#261

Charlie Don't Surf

I just got back from it, and loved it!

May 18, 2013#262

ThatNickGuy

Adam said:
Just got back. It just wasn't that great. Parts sure were exciting, but holy fucking lens flare overdose. The 3d was incredibly irritating. The theme was constantly overused. Lines were cribbed directly from its much better inspiration. Will think on it more, but its definitely not a thinking persons Star Trek.

Fucking lens flares, Jesus.

SERIOUSLY? Did he not think all the people complaining about it last time might be an indication to cut back?

May 18, 2013#263

SpecialKO

ThatNickGuy said:
SERIOUSLY? Did he not think all the people complaining about it last time might be an indication to cut back?

I thought there was actually a lot less lens flare this time.

This one was weird. There a bits of really good movie, and then there are bits of really bad movie, and most of those bits are from shoehorning in extra Trek-related things it didn't need.

May 18, 2013#264

Adam

SpecialKO said:
I thought there was actually a lot less lens flare this time.

This one was weird. There a bits of really good movie, and then there are bits of really bad movie, and most of those bits are from shoehorning in extra Trek-related things it didn't need.

Seriously? If this was less I really need to watch the first one because this was completely and utterly excessive. Often you couldn't even see what was going on because of the lens flare. It's like they made a joke of it when, for example

The Vengeance shows up. puts the spotlight on the Enterprise. You have an outside view and the spotlight is illuminating the enterprise in this red light, and the lens flare covers up what felt like a good fifth of the screen. And then it slowly blinks on and off until it's completely off. So you can now see the Enterprise...

And the 3d was completely distracting. They'd have someone's body or a line of glasses in the bar in front of the actors or just cloth in the front of the action and it was just completely distracting.

Even if the movie was well written (it wasn't)
Even if someone of the technology made sense (it didn't)
Even if the plot twists worked (They didn't)
At least make the movie somewhat watchable.

Some parts worked really well. The acting was okay. Karl Urban is always good as Bones. And Pike is played masterfully.

But it's obvious that this is a demo reel for Star Wars.

May 19, 2013#265

ScytheRexx

My wife and I enjoyed it, and this is coming from a Trek fan. That said I do agree it was a bit goofy.

It's hard to take the Spock and Kirk relationship seriously because of how little time the two version have been together. It would have been much better for them to imply that the Enterprise was RETURNING from the five year journey rather then having the events happen just before it. It would have allowed people to sit back and be "Oh these guys have been together a lot longer by this point, okay I get it." Instead they made it seem like it's only been a short while.

I think the whole Khan arc would have been way more interesting if they ended it with him being a good guy. I thought for a bit they were going that direction, but then they totally squandered it to make him bad again for the final act of the movie. The general plot holes were kind of getting on my nerves, but not enough to get me angry over it. The nerd in me still has issues with a few things, like how quickly they got to Earth from Klingon space. It was what, 30 seconds? In the first movie just getting to the armada from what was left of Vulcan seemed to be taking an hour. For awhile I thought they were just chilling around a random planet until Khan crashes in San Francisco, which is what really brings up the biggest problem with the movies.

Where the hell is everyone? I can understand the Enterprise being the only ship when it's out exploring the cosmos, but does Earth have ZERO defensive ships? In the first movie Nero just waltzed up to Earth and started drilling it. Not even a land-to-space defense system, let alone other ships. Don't give me that "but they were all either in Klingon space or destroyed at Vulcan!" bullshit, no place is going to leave themselves 100% defenseless like that when you could be on the brink of war. It was even more glaring in the new movie, because the Enterprise and that Dreadnaught were either blowing each other to bits or sitting dead in the water, and not a single other ship was sent to figure out what the hell? Not even one to try and shoot down a crashing ship before it takes out half of San Francisco? What the hell!

Really, and this is totally nerdy, the biggest thing that jarred me was when they reached Qo'noS and the moon of Praxis was ALREADY EXPLODED. This was one of the big plot points of Star Trek VI that happens years later, and why they decided to try for peace with the Federation. I know they probably wanted to use it as the excuse why Qo'noS looked like a bunch of ruins with little if any Klingon defenses, but they barely even acknowledged that. They just throw Qo'noS into the plot, and make it so a small away shuttle can pretty much just fly right in, the only resistance being three small scout ships. Did the Klingons look at the way Earth defenses were being handled and decide "Yes, I like that, let's do that."

May 19, 2013#266

Frank

ScytheRexx said:
My wife and I enjoyed it, and this is coming from a Trek fan. That said I do agree it was a bit goofy.

It's hard to take the Spock and Kirk relationship seriously because of how little time the two version have been together. It would have been much better for them to imply that the Enterprise was RETURNING from the five year journey rather then having the events happen just before it. It would have allowed people to sit back and be "Oh these guys have been together a lot longer by this point, okay I get it." Instead they made it seem like it's only been a short while.

I think the whole Khan arc would have been way more interesting if they ended it with him being a good guy. I thought for a bit they were going that direction, but then they totally squandered it to make him bad again for the final act of the movie. The general plot holes were kind of getting on my nerves, but not enough to get me angry over it. The nerd in me still has issues with a few things, like how quickly they got to Earth from Klingon space. It was what, 30 seconds? In the first movie just getting to the armada from what was left of Vulcan seemed to be taking an hour. For awhile I thought they were just chilling around a random planet until Khan crashes in San Francisco, which is what really brings up the biggest problem with the movies.

Where the hell is everyone? I can understand the Enterprise being the only ship when it's out exploring the cosmos, but does Earth have ZERO defensive ships? In the first movie Nero just waltzed up to Earth and started drilling it. Not even a land-to-space defense system, let alone other ships. Don't give me that "but they were all either in Klingon space or destroyed at Vulcan!" bullshit, no place is going to leave themselves 100% defenseless like that when you could be on the brink of war. It was even more glaring in the new movie, because the Enterprise and that Dreadnaught were either blowing each other to bits or sitting dead in the water, and not a single other ship was sent to figure out what the hell? Not even one to try and shoot down a crashing ship before it takes out half of San Francisco? What the hell!

Really, and this is totally nerdy, the biggest thing that jarred me was when they reached Qo'noS and the moon of Praxis was ALREADY EXPLODED. This was one of the big plot points of Star Trek VI that happens years later, and why they decided to try for peace with the Federation. I know they probably wanted to use it as the excuse why Qo'noS looked like a bunch of ruins with little if any Klingon defenses, but they barely even acknowledged that. They just throw Qo'noS into the plot, and make it so a small away shuttle can pretty much just fly right in, the only resistance being three small scout ships. Did the Klingons look at the way Earth defenses were being handled and decide "Yes, I like that, let's do that."

Eh, there's no point in trying to suss out why all the bits that didn't make sense don't make sense. The writers are lazy hacks.

May 19, 2013#267

Adam

Also,

transwarp beaming from planet to planet. Yet we can't get a lock on people in a fistfight on the ground because they're moving. Repeatedly.

DESPITE the fact that Chekov demonstrated he could teleport people hurtling to the ground in the previous movie.

And why the hell would you have to park the Enterprise underwater so a spear-throwing species wouldn't notice you. Could you not just stay in orbit?

May 19, 2013#268

ScytheRexx

I mentioned the Chekov thing to my wife.

"It's a bit weird that in the first movie he was able to transport Sulu and Kirk while they were moving at terminal velocity, and yet in this movie when Kirk and company are just kind of moving around a bit, he can't?"

They attempted to explain away the whole long range transporter thing by implying Scotty's tech was taken from him and classified, thus how it was used by Khan. I wouldn't be surprised if that was also the reason they made the whole plot of Scotty getting removed from his position on the Enterprise, just so they could keep the excuse going about why the Enterprise does not use those long range transporters again.

May 20, 2013#269

bhamv3

I suppose they could handwave it by saying something falling at terminal velocity has a steady and predictable trajectory, making it easier to get a lock. Someone engaged in a fistfight is probably moving in an unpredictable way.

May 20, 2013#270

Frank

Former Topless Robot Editor Rob Bricken's usual funny self Q&A about the movie.

http://io9.com/star-trek-into-darkness-the-spoiler-faq-508927844

May 21, 2013#271

Covar

This movie was not the first, nor the last time the teleporters didn't work because of plot.

May 23, 2013#272

BananaHands

I'm confused on why people are upset on why

Kirk got brought back by Khan's blood.

I mean. In the third movie Spock gets brought back by a magical planet and some Vulcan mind-meld.

It's a Star Trek film. Loosen up a bit. This was all started by William Shatner shackin' up with green girls and cheesy plots.

May 23, 2013#273

Covar

BananaHands said:
I'm confused on why people are upset on why

Kirk got brought back by Khan's blood.

I mean. In the third movie Spock gets brought back by a magical planet and some Vulcan mind-meld.

It's a Star Trek film. Loosen up a bit. This was all started by William Shatner shackin' up with green girls and cheesy plots.

NO IT"S SERIOUS BUZINESS!!! Star Trek is philosophical and serious, with no action scenes whatsoever because people talk it out in the future!!! It wasn't some low budget show with heavy handed moral lessons where the Captain explained how things should be in the 1960s in between ripping his shirt off and clubbing people in the back with both his hands.

May 23, 2013#274

BananaHands

Covar said:
NO IT"S SERIOUS BUZINESS!!! Star Trek is philosophical and serious, with no action scenes whatsoever because people talk it out in the future!!! It wasn't some low budget show with heavy handed moral lessons where the Captain explained how things should be in the 1960s in between ripping his shirt off and clubbing people in the back with both his hands.

May 23, 2013#275

Frank

BananaHands said:
I'm confused on why people are upset on why

Kirk got brought back by Khan's blood.

I mean. In the third movie Spock gets brought back by a magical planet and some Vulcan mind-meld.

It's a Star Trek film. Loosen up a bit. This was all started by William Shatner shackin' up with green girls and cheesy plots.

And that was a shitty Star Trek movie, just like this one.

Covar said:
NO IT"S SERIOUS BUZINESS!!! Star Trek is philosophical and serious, with no action scenes whatsoever because people talk it out in the future!!! It wasn't some low budget show with heavy handed moral lessons where the Captain explained how things should be in the 1960s in between ripping his shirt off and clubbing people in the back with both his hands.

Dumb.

May 23, 2013#276

GasBandit

Any criticism of star trek based on an odd numbered movie will not be accepted as valid for making later trek movies look better by comparison.

May 23, 2013#277

BananaHands

GasBandit said:
Any criticism of star trek based on an odd numbered movie will not be accepted as valid for making later trek movies look better by comparison.

But... but... this was an EVEN!!

May 23, 2013#278

GasBandit

BananaHands said:
But... but... this was an EVEN!!

Which makes it all the more egregious.

May 23, 2013#279

Covar

Nemesis had pre-industrial aged dune buggies. :troll:

May 23, 2013#280

BananaHands

GasBandit said:
Which makes it all the more egregious.

Did you enjoy the 2009 one? Perhaps with the timeline being altered, they also altered the bad films to even numbers?

May 23, 2013#281

Frank

Covar said:
Nemesis had pre-industrial aged dune buggies.

It was also almost on par with Star Trek 5 for worst Star Trek (in my opinion).

I need to watch Star Trek 5 again just to have my brain blown out of the back of my head.

Best part of Star Trek 5? Spock nerve pinching a horse.

May 23, 2013#282

Espy

Man, if I wanted to I could tear this movie apart. So many problems.

But you know what? It was a shit ton of fun. So I won't. Because I don't care. It won't stand the test of time though. And thats a shame.

May 23, 2013#283

Dei

Frank said:
It was also almost on par with Star Trek 5 for worst Star Trek (in my opinion).

I need to watch Star Trek 5 again just to have my brain blown out of the back of my head.

Best part of Star Trek 5? Spock nerve pinching a horse.

My husband denies the existence of Star Trek V.

May 24, 2013#284

strawman

I very much enjoyed this movie. Every goofy cheesy minute of it.

Don't take the goofy cheese out of my Star Trek.

May 26, 2013#285

Shawn

I quite enjoyed the movie. Yes there are definitely plenty of moments that just don't make sense. Well it's a Star Trek movie. They have made about as much sense as an episode of Doctor Who. Always contradicting each other, and explaining the situation away by use of some technical issue that doesn't always make sense. Sometimes you just have to forgive them for these. And I do forgive them for the most part. The Kirk resurrection was forced and seen a mile away. Just too damn convenient for a happy ending. But still. What would the Star Trek movies be without Kirk? I did enjoy the role reversal though. Quinto's "Khaaaaannn" was nice. I give it 4 and a half out of 5 stars. Not a work of art, but I'm sure as hell buying it on Bluray.

May 26, 2013#286

Jay

The fuck happened to my post.

May 26, 2013#287

ThatNickGuy

Jay said:
The fuck happened to my post.

I ate it.

Sorry.

May 26, 2013#288

Telephius

EDIT: oops forgot to spoiler tag :oops:

I was dissapointed they decided to use Khan as the villain for the second new movie. I enjoyed the movie as a fun popcorn flick though and I think the paralelling was some of the weaker part of the film. I didn't mind the reactor role reversal bewteeen Spock and Kirk however I would have liked that they changed the tone of how Spock curses Khan's name to be a bit more subdued(but just as angry) to match that Spock is half Vulcan. Oddly enough though the lens flares do not bother me at all.

May 26, 2013#289

Ravenpoe

So, I got to see this movie yesterday when Gatsby wouldn't play (got a free ticket for another time due to technical problems).

My analysis? Not bad for a dumb action movie, but damn was it DUMB. Nothing about it seemed like Star Trek. Kirk especially came across as a frat boy that never puts any thought into anything, never follows protocol, makes 'gut decisions' that gets hundreds killed, and -never- gets into trouble for any of it. Hell, half the time he gets promoted for it.

A dumb captain with a dumb crew saving a dumb universe through dumb luck.

May 26, 2013#290

Bubble181

Ravenpoe said:
A dumb captain with a dumb crew saving a dumb universe through dumb luck.

Soooo.....the movie of the series "Enterprise"? :troll:

May 26, 2013#291

Covar

Sounds like Kirk to me. Replace Dumb frat boy with dumb 60s ladies man and you have TOS.

May 26, 2013#292

Shawn

Regarding transporter discrepancies between movies.

After watching the 2009 movie, and considering why Chekov or Scott could not transport Khan and Spock back onto the Enterprise I considered the following. Firstly when they use the transporter to rescue Kirk and Sulu from a freefall, yes they were moving, but they were moving at a consistent velocity. This would allow Chekov to know where they would be mathematically and program the transporter to compensate. In regards to an open brawl on a shuttle they would have to compensate for many other factors as there is no guarantee they will be exactly where the computer calculates them too be since running around hitting each other on a ship that can alter speeds isn't going to be the same to calculate as terminal velocity. The second factor is desperation. With Kirk and Sulu falling you have one chance to get them or they are dead. You screw up the transport they are dead. Either way they are dead and the only possible favorable outcome is to at least try. With the open brawl the major factor was getting Khan alive to save Kirk. If they failed in their attempt to transport him he would die. But if he got away at least they might be able to try to capture him again in the future. So the stakes were very different.

May 26, 2013#293

Bowielee

Overall, I enjoyed it. There's tons to nitpick, but I still liked it.

Main nitpick, though. PHASERS DON'T HAVE RECOIL.

May 26, 2013#294

Ravenpoe

Bowielee said:
Overall, I enjoyed it. There's tons to nitpick, but I still liked it.

Main nitpick, though. PHASERS DON'T HAVE RECOIL.

May 27, 2013#295

Frank

Shawnacy said:
Regarding transporter discrepancies between movies.

After watching the 2009 movie, and considering why Chekov or Scott could not transport Khan and Spock back onto the Enterprise I considered the following. Firstly when they use the transporter to rescue Kirk and Sulu from a freefall, yes they were moving, but they were moving at a consistent velocity. This would allow Chekov to know where they would be mathematically and program the transporter to compensate. In regards to an open brawl on a shuttle they would have to compensate for many other factors as there is no guarantee they will be exactly where the computer calculates them too be since running around hitting each other on a ship that can alter speeds isn't going to be the same to calculate as terminal velocity. The second factor is desperation. With Kirk and Sulu falling you have one chance to get them or they are dead. You screw up the transport they are dead. Either way they are dead and the only possible favorable outcome is to at least try. With the open brawl the major factor was getting Khan alive to save Kirk. If they failed in their attempt to transport him he would die. But if he got away at least they might be able to try to capture him again in the future. So the stakes were very different.

You are trying way harder than the writers of the movie did.[DOUBLEPOST=1369636950][/DOUBLEPOST]It always bummed me out that they never elaborated much on Balance of Terror. Even in Next Generation, the Romulans were never REALLY the enemy.

The episode that has both Spock's dad and the dude that tries to cuckold Spock when he's all pon fary playing Romulans.

May 27, 2013#296

Ravenpoe

Frank said:
You are trying way harder than the writers of the movie did.[DOUBLEPOST=1369636950][/DOUBLEPOST]It always bummed me out that they never elaborated much on Balance of Terror. Even in Next Generation, the Romulans were never REALLY the enemy.

The episode that has both Spock's dad and the dude that tries to cuckold Spock when he's all pon fary playing Romulans.

This 10 minute compilation of an episode is way smarter than anything in Star Trek: Into Darkness.

Though, if I were to nitpick, it would be that while I realize they're performing a submarine drama, and such genre requires the tension of being forced to be quiet, they should be able to have a live band playing inside the enterprise, as sound wouldn't travel through space to the other ship.

Though, I suppose that too could be hand waved if the other ship were using laser surface scanners to detect vibration in the enterprise's hull.

May 27, 2013#297

Frank

Ravenpoe said:
This 10 minute compilation of an episode is way smarter than anything in Star Trek: Into Darkness.

Though, if I were to nitpick, it would be that while I realize they're performing a submarine drama, and such genre requires the tension of being forced to be quiet, they should be able to have a live band playing inside the enterprise, as sound wouldn't travel through space to the other ship.

Though, I suppose that too could be hand waved if the other ship were using laser surface scanners to detect vibration in the enterprise's hull.

Yeah, but if that were the case, you'd figure anything being on or any sort of movement within the ship would be as detectable as sound.

It's still one of the best episodes of Star Trek (of all series) in my opinion.

They cut out the racial tension on board the Enterprise between the helmsman and Spock after it's shown that Romulans are Vulcanesque.

May 27, 2013#298

Ravenpoe

Frank said:
Yeah, but if that were the case, you'd figure anything being on or any sort of movement within the ship would be as detectable as sound.

It's still one of the best episodes of Star Trek (of all series) in my opinion.

They cut out the racial tension on board the Enterprise between the helmsman and Spock after it's shown that Romulans are Vulcanesque.

Yeah, I remember that. It was the guy that Spock saved from the coolant leak. He thought that Spock was a spy or a traitor when he found out that Vulcans and Romulans are the same race.

Also, what does Kirk do when they're watching an unknown plasma torpedo coming at them, knowing it could possibly destroy them? Time to grab a blonde yeoman's ass.

May 27, 2013#299

Bowielee

Ravenpoe said:
Yeah, I remember that. It was the guy that Spock saved from the coolant leak. He thought that Spock was a spy or a traitor when he found out that Vulcans and Romulans are the same race.

Also, what does Kirk do when they're watching an unknown plasma torpedo coming at them, knowing it could possibly destroy them? Time to grab a blonde yeoman's ass.

What was that about Kirk not being portrayed as a frat boy?

May 28, 2013#300

GasBandit

The "be quiet" stuff is leftover writer-brain-fart because Balance of Terror was a copy-paste with the names changed of The Enemy Below.

May 28, 2013#301

Terrik

Just got back from seeing it and I also thought it was a lot of fun.

Yeah some of the plot points were obvious but, lets be honest here, how often has trek truly *surprised* you. Only DS9 ever managed to make me go "Oh shit"---speaking of DS9, the DS9 fanboy in me went SQEEEEEEEE at the mention of Section 31. Now that I've seen this movie, I'm more accustomed to the actors and I still feel they fit their roles pretty well. Also, I don't find their (kirk and spock) friendship unbelievable--after all, didn't future Spock essentially tell them both in the last movie that their relationship is life-changing and important? I figure that's gotta affect something.

May 29, 2013#302

fade

The battle of Wolf 359 didn't freak you out?

May 30, 2013#303

Jay