Star Trek - Into Darkness | May 15, 2013

  • Thread starter CodeRedR51
  • 149 comments
  • 10,724 views
FoolKiller
I saw it today on IMAX 3D. It was very good. From a first viewing I didn't pick out any glaring potholes the way I did in the first one. There were plenty of moments or lines given as a nod to the old-school fans. There was even a moment that points all the way back to a single episode of The Original Series. It was fun and exciting and great blockbuster stuff for all sci-fi/action fans.


All that said, I seriously want to sit the writers and Abrams down and have a very long discussion regarding physics, particularly Star Trek physics.
Click to expand...

We should do it here!

Talking about sound in space? Randomly flopping out of warped space, completely intact? Being hit by space trash while acting as a human torpedo?

Hmm, what else...

The anti-matter ring the guy dropped, line-of-sight teleportation, the fact that once the "gravity system" went down while they were falling back to Earth that they were running around the ship with seemingly full Earth gravity when they should've been free falling?

Oh yeah! And the most disappointing thing, imo, "cold fusion bomb"
:rolleyes:

I don't know Star Trek's particular brand of physics very well at all, but I do know regular old real-life physics :).
Love talking about it.

Although, to kind of bring back a bit of old talk of whether Star Trek's "hard" Sci-Fi or whatever, definitely not. And not just in the sense that it needs to explain everything in detail in order to be considered as such, 'cause that's not necessarily true either, but in the fact that Gene was more than willing to compromise reality for the sake of a good story.

He didn't work around the math, as hard science fiction does (in its purest form), but made the math work around the setting/plot.

Teleportation's an easy quick example. From what I've always heard, the teleporter was really only put in 'cause they didn't want to spend money on building a shuttle set and filming it everytime they landed on a planet. Teleporter's much easier. There were other compromises like this made, but I can't recall anymore at the moment. (I think it was in that Star Trek documentary History Channel or whoever had talking about how the show influenced real life technological advances like mobile phones and such).

Sometimes they do go out of their way to explain certain aspects of the different technologies in vague terms sometimes too, to satisfy the nerd gland a bit. Heisenberg compensator, which is the key to making the Star Trek teleporter work, is one.

I loved this movie though; ITD. Benedict really killed it, what a performance. Thoroughly entertaining though, I didn't want the show to stop.

The amount of awesome stuff they fit into one package was quite the satisfying experience.
 
While the things you mention aren't realistic, they are the kind of thing that makes fun sci-fi work. I'm thinking more about starships within a planet's atmosphere, with the warp core running no less, and engaging warp within naked-eyesight of a space station, within a star system.

These are all things that were massive no-nos. Warp drives work on an antimatter reaction. If that goes bad within a system you could kill billions. Even in First Contact, when the TNG crew went back in time and aided Zefram Cochran in creating the first warp drive, it wasn't initiated until they escaped orbit. If Star Trek were about a group of freelance explorers who should know better it wouldn't bother me, but this is a military ship with rules and regulations. Impulse engines existed for a reason. The new movies don't seem to believe they exist.
 
FoolKiller
I saw it today on IMAX 3D. It was very good. From a first viewing I didn't pick out any glaring potholes the way I did in the first one. There were plenty of moments or lines given as a nod to the old-school fans. There was even a moment that points all the way back to a single episode of The Original Series. It was fun and exciting and great blockbuster stuff for all sci-fi/action fans.


All that said, I seriously want to sit the writers and Abrams down and have a very long discussion regarding physics, particularly Star Trek physics.
Click to expand...

Earth today has better security at top defense installations around the clock. After a terrorist bombing, you're telling me that the equivilant of a helicopter gunship is just going to fly up to starfleet HQ and shoot up a room full of admirals and captains? Really? Also, where is the rest of the fleet? Giant battle going on in the vicinity of Earth and there are no immediate responders? Come on.

Also, since when is Kronos a couple minutes away from Earth. I know it's close, but it's not that close.
 
Keep in mind, we are dealing with a super genius whose first introduction to this time period was creating a fake identity.

And Kronos wasn't that close. The edge of the Neutral Zone was. They had to fly a shuttle in to Kronos from the Enterprise's position. Although that was an exaggeratedly small warp jump, even compared to their trip to the Neutral Zone.

Also, don't forget that this is still taking place at a time frame before the original TV show. Real exploration hasn't begun yet, and it is a few hundred years before other quadrants are extensively being explored.

And this isn't the first time battles occur near Earth with no other ships around. There has even been times that the Enterprise was the only ship close enough to help out, like Star Trek IV.
 
Except in 4, everything around Earth was disabled. They did make it a point to show that! Star Trek Enterprise had happened, so there was moderate exploration. Still, the point is that Sol wasn't completely empty and shipless. They did make it appear that way, however. Just a year before the events in this movie, there was a direct attack on Earth from a large alien ship. Starfleet was arming up to defend itself from outside forces. Except, clearly not since nobody responded? Psh.

e - I'm not one to get all uppity about specific star trek shenanigans. Those few points seem like pretty glaring plotholes to me. I look at it like this - is this something that would fly today? Is this something that would fly after the events of the first movie happening so close? I think the answers for those are no.
 
Last edited:
ShobThaBob
Except in 4, everything around Earth was disabled. They did make it a point to show that!
Click to expand...
They were on their way home from the Genesis planet, in a smaller, slower, and weaker Bird of Prey and were the only hope.

Star Trek Enterprise had happened, so there was moderate exploration. Still, the point is that Sol wasn't completely empty and shipless. They did make it appear that way, however. Just a year before the events in this movie, there was a direct attack on Earth from a large alien ship. Starfleet was arming up to defend itself from outside forces. Except, clearly not since nobody responded? Psh.

e - I'm not one to get all uppity about specific star trek shenanigans. Those few points seem like pretty glaring plotholes to me. I look at it like this - is this something that would fly today? Is this something that would fly after the events of the first movie happening so close? I think the answers for those are no.
Click to expand...
I think you are missing a few details. This was just over a year after the first film. The Enterprise was still the newest ship in the fleet, so Kirk says. The Enterprise took all of Kirk's Academy years to build (we see it in early construction before he signs up). Building defenses would mean recalling a chunk of your fleet, potentially losing territory to Romulans and/or Klingons, where all known threats existed. There was no reason to defend against a highly unlikely time traveling threat, and Old Spock vowed to not tell of any of his life, leaving them completely in the dark about V-Ger (Early Borg?), whale probes, Borg, or the other hundreds of threats in other quadrants.

And one other thing:

There were preparations being created due to the first film's events. It was a dreadnaught class warship being captained by Robocop. The Enterprise was fighting the response. That also adds in that the starship battle was between two Federation ships. How should any response be directed at two Federation commanders calling each other traitors, or after, when one ship, more powerful than the fleet and controlled by a terrorist, is holding the other, and its 300 crew, hostage? It wasn't exactly a clear cut good vs bad scenario at first, and then became a hostage situation.

This wasn't Sulu arriving on the Excelsior to shoot at Klingons.

Besides, Star Trek was always about two strategists squaring off in battle. Massive fleet battles didn't happen until near the end.


Speaking of Old Spock's villains; it would be nice if new Spock could make an off-handed remark that his half brother died on Vulcan. Just so we don't have to worry that Spock will kill God. Although, I would love to see new Kirk's version of "What does God need with a starship?"
 
FoolKiller
They were on their way home from the Genesis planet, in a smaller, slower, and weaker Bird of Prey and were the only hope.


I think you are missing a few details. This was just over a year after the first film. The Enterprise was still the newest ship in the fleet, so Kirk says. The Enterprise took all of Kirk's Academy years to build (we see it in early construction before he signs up). Building defenses would mean recalling a chunk of your fleet, potentially losing territory to Romulans and/or Klingons, where all known threats existed. There was no reason to defend against a highly unlikely time traveling threat, and Old Spock vowed to not tell of any of his life, leaving them completely in the dark about V-Ger (Early Borg?), whale probes, Borg, or the other hundreds of threats in other quadrants.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I wasn't talking about the first movie in regards to the fleet, as there was a huge fleet that got destroyed when they responded to Vulcan. What I meant was that in a short timeframe, there was a direct major attack on Earth, prompting military buildup and preperation. What happens a year later? Big battle at Sol, direct attack on undefended starfleet HQ, and a ship crashing into San Fansisco. There's no indication of a hightened level of security/military alert. Very silly.

If we are to believe the timelines, just 1 or two days before their return from the Neutral Zone, there were 8-10 pairs of starship captains/admirals stationed at/near Earth. As much was clear when they all got shot to pieces. Earth was not without other starships.



Speaking of Old Spock's villains; it would be nice if new Spock could make an off-handed remark that his half brother died on Vulcan. Just so we don't have to worry that Spock will kill God. Although, I would love to see new Kirk's version of "What does God need with a starship?"
Click to expand...

If I had to venture a guess, I would say "Are you ****ing serious?"
 
One thing to keep in mind, Hollywood screen time vs real time vary vastly. The film did a poor job of giving time.

The Enterprise was crippled for at least a day. Possibly more. I got the feel it was a few days, but they avoided stating specifically. Keep in mind, in the time since they brought Khan aboard the Enterprise, Scotty had time to travel to Jupiter without warp. But I believe this is unimportant.

The battle took place at roughly the moon's orbit. All starships were on lockdown, by Marcus' orders. Seeing as he was doing things off the books to keep his secret, I doubt he would have released those orders. Assuming a starship still had an assigned, living captain (they mostly got shot up, remember) and necessary crew aboard the space dock, getting prepped and launched would have taken as long as the battle itself. If we assume a 1:1 time ratio between scenes, I'd bet the scenes of them getting on the Enterprise and the near-Earth battle scene don't have a massive difference in time. Add in that it is two Federation ships, which creates confusion, and there wasn't time to react or even determine an appropriate reaction.

Anyway, I would need a further viewing to determine exactly who is correct. It is Orci and Kurtzman, so no plot holes would surprise me.
 
Right, and that I can buy no problem.

Holo of him stealing shuttle and flying said shuttle directly to Starfleet HQ to attack a huge gathering of top military officials, absolutely not. After a terrorist attack? Come. On. You know this.
 
ShobThaBob
Right, and that I can buy no problem.
Click to expand...

He didn't steal the shuttle in the holo. He stole the portable transporter during the immediate aftermath. Kirk pointed out that them all gathering was a mistake, because they thought he was trying to get off world. It was a weak point of the story to show the arrogance Kirk was berated for also caused die hard adherence to rules and regulation that left them extremely exposed. Star Trek was supposed to take place in a utopian society, so I believe they were suppsed to have trouble believing this could happen from within their own society and their arrogance and illusion of control came back to bite them. The rule for them all to meet was in the event of an attack. They were expecting Klingons, not homegrown.

The utopian image was what the director and writer for Wrath of Khan broke down to the truth of a militaristic society under the guise of a scientific utopia, much to Roddenberry's anger. Same writer/director for Star Trek VI, where the racist undercurrents of the society were exposed.

And this is where Orci and Kurtzman's weakness as writers shine. They were making the same point as WoK,, but did it in a clumsy way that left some of the audience questioning how they got there. Showing how Khan managed the attack would have helped, but it would ruin the surprise or need to be a flashback. My guess is the hope was that we are supposed to see it as a sign of Khan's logistical brilliance, proving his threat is real through more than just manipulation, and that Federation regulations pale in comparison, leading to Spock's huge personality growth later in the field.
 
Like I said, I may have missed something.

I thought Kirk asked Pike, "What's in the bag?" after viewing the bombing aftermath. I remember the shuttle discussion, and Kirk questioning their assumptions (that he was trying to sneak on to a starship), but don't remember that being on the holo image Kirk zoomed in on.
 
What I want to know is...
how Harrison had an alka-seltzer ring that turned into a megaton bomb. Can't wear that sucker in the rain!

Saw the movie today. Music is fantastic. The story was super predictable though. Maybe I'm just an evil genius, but I felt like I could call Harrison's and Starfleet's every move.

I may have ruined the movie for some people in the theater with me as well...
When Kirk died, I was thinking, "Man, Kirk can't die. Wtf are they going to do?" Then, it hit me, I clapped my hands together and blurted out, "THE CHIA PET CELLS!" Sorry, that's my thing.
 
Anyone else get a Batman Beyond vibe from this? Sounds so familiar.

 
Last edited:
Omnis
What I want to know is...
how Harrison had an alka-seltzer ring that turned into a megaton bomb. Can't wear that sucker in the rain!
Click to expand...
I wonder the same thing every time I eat bananas after seeing pure potassium dropped into water.

Saw the movie today. Music is fantastic. The story was super predictable though. Maybe I'm just an evil genius, but I felt like I could call Harrison's and Starfleet's every move.
Click to expand...
Action sci-fi should be in the thesaurus under predictable. Orci/Kurtzman should be under it in the dictionary.

For instance, I bet in a Transformers 4 there will be a new thing that has existed for centuries/millenia that is the only hope to changing the outcome of the war.

I may have ruined the movie for some people in the theater with me as well...
When Kirk died, I was thinking, "Man, Kirk can't die. Wtf are they going to do?" Then, it hit me, I clapped my hands together and blurted out, "THE CHIA PET CELLS!" Sorry, that's my thing.
Click to expand...
I saw that coming too.

To be honest, the Tribble test was a 30 second side-story that was designed to look like an explanation for why tribbles become what they are.
 
As of now I have seen Into Darkness twice.

As a second generation Trekkie (though probably not to FoolKiller's extent :P), I thoroughly enjoyed it and didn't enjoy it any less the second time.

When I watch movies one ear is constantly paying attention to the soundtrack - as a musician hoping to eventually play on movie soundtracks it's hard not to. Michael Giocchino did fantastic work as expected - I was very pleased to hear the recurrence of themes from the first reboot.

After reading through this thread's seven pages I'm a bit apprehensive of posting my thoughts on the movie, but in short I thought it was fantastic. I think I enjoyed the first one more, but only by a little.

I didn't really see anything wrong with it (except maybe Khan being able to waltz over to the undefended Starfleet HQ and lay waste, but after reading the comments here about Roddenberry's idea of utopian society in the Trek universe it makes a lot more sense.) when I watched it, and I thought the WoK role reversal at the end was good. But then I read this article and I couldn't really refute a lot of the (non-subjective) points made. In the end I don't care because I watch movies to be entertained and ST:ID delivered that in spades, but I would like to see other people's thoughts on this article.

I did notice that both ST 2009 and ST:ID end in the EXACT same way, with the Enterprise warping directly out of Earth's starbase (and not away from it - interesting) to the TNG theme. Not a down point, just an observation.

Also, this article makes the third movie very promising to me: "maybe we earned the right to do some sci-fi in this third movie and sort of have earned the right to do whatever Star Trek needs to be. We’ve done these two cool, big, action Star Trek movies. Are we allowed to do more than that now? I’d like to think so."

P.S. Interesting that links in spoiler tags show up non-spoilered.
 
Some of the criticisms in that link are actually just the rankings of someone unfamiliar with Star Trek canon.

For example, I'd just point out that in Star Trek IV Kirk says that they have no disease. That kind of nullifies a point the article spent about half a page on, and he mischaracterizes how that scene played out.

But hey, half-attentive, supposed fans ranting on the Internet is what it's there for, right?
 
I don't consider myself a trekkie and wouldn't dare to argue with those who are, but I do love Star Trek and its "honesty" (kind of hard to put in English what I mean) when compared to other sci-fi franchises, like Star Wars. Must be the Jules Vern lover in me, I like long voyages where extraordinary things happen, be it through Siberia on a common horse or under the sea inside Nautilus.

Anyway, I do love Star Trek and, as stated, I find this reboot a very interesting (and clever) way of telling new adventures without compromising all that we knew from the previous timeline.

Back to this latest movie and specifically on the subject of Khan, last night I stumbled upon a very interesting fan made youtube video, and couldn't help but to notice all the criticism over Khan suddenly becoming "white". I share it all with you trekkies, it's an interesting video find, and an interesting debate (disclaimer: youtubers aren't usually very polite :lol: )

Video best viewed in vimeo, here you have it:


For the comments, go to the youtube page of the same video, here the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKtieXEBLcE
 
Why oh why did I not go see this in theaters when I had the chance? Obviously owning it now makes it all moot, but having seen the first in theaters and then somehow missing this one seems odd.

Regardless of that, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie to all ends.

There was a Tribble. I definitely wasn't expecting that whatsoever.

I wish someone would have said trouble with tribbles though. :lol:
 
Overall I thought the movie was quite good,

The part I really didn't like was when they basically ripped a page from the "Wrath of Khan" script and switched around the Kirk and Spock characters...there was no real point in doing that and it didn't work in my opinion.
 
I disagree.

Spock finds out Khan is, to put it politely, evil and when he discovers just far he's willing to go it's ultimately Kirk who sacrifices himself for the better of everyone else. Once Spock was finally informed, the situation was a Catch 22 in and of itself.

The point of the role reversal was exactly that; watch helplessly as Kirk succumbs to radiation poisoning, or open the hatch and risk the lives of everyone else.

I thought it was well done as a result.
 
It was merely the fact that they pretty used almost the exact same lines from Star Trek II that momentarily took me oit of the moment, not the scene in general. They could've used original dialog and it would've been just as effective. That's just my take on it anyway, still a great movie and I can't wait until the next one.
 
Ok watched the movie on DVD and I have to say:

I totally called it! Who said Wrath of Khan immediately after seeing the trailer in this thread and has two thumbs? This guy!

Man I'm good.

Overall I liked the movie and thought it was reasonably well done. Immediately after watching the movie I pulled up Wrath of Khan and watched the scene with Kirk and Spok in the engine bay. I have to say they did it better in the original. The new movie just adds too many lines. Too much talking, not enough drama.

Also, if you thought the physics in Star Trek 2009 was bad...

First of all, you don't need thrust to maintain orbit around the Earth. If you were perfectly stationary and were using thrust to maintain yourself near the moon, you would not fall straight into the Earth as the moon's gravity would bend your trajectory and you'd end up in orbit around the Earth. If somehow you got unlucky and went straight at the Earth, it would take a very very very long time to get there.

Second of all, if near the Earth's atmosphere and you lose artificial gravity and you're falling straight at the ground (for some reason), you do not suddenly get pulled to random parts of the ship. You float... you know... just like the astronauts float. Gravity pulls on you just like it pulls on your ship. There is no difference between the acceleration on you and the acceleration on your ship, so you freefall (like a skydiver) together. The whole scene where they were flopping to one side of the ship and then the other depending on which side was pointed at the ground was cringeworthy to say the least. It seriously, seriously damaged the movie for me.

All in all, definitely worth a view. Some very interesting effects and kudos to them for creating new and interesting environments. Story was solid, despite a few awkward moments, and fairly well executed.

I totally called it!
 
FoolKiller
And coming from the same writers as the Transformers films. Who would have guessed? :sly:
Click to expand...

In the original, there are only a few words exchanged. Lemme see if I can find the script. Here is literally everything spoken in the original:


SCOTTY
No, sir! You'll flood the whole
compartment...!

KIRK
He'll die -- !

BONES
(also holds him)
He's dead already, Jim.

KIRK
Oh, God.


KIRK
Spock!

SPOCK
The ship -- out of danger?

KIRK
Yes --

SPOCK
Don't grieve, Admiral -- it's
logical: the good of the many
outweighs --

KIRK
... the good of the few...

SPOCK
Or the one.

SPOCK
(continuing)
I never took the Kobayashi Maru
test -- until now. What do you
think of my solution?

KIRK
Spock...!

SPOCK
I have been -- and always will be
-- your friend... Live. Long. And.
Prosper.

KIRK
No...!

That's it. Very few words exchanged. By contrast the new movie rambles on quite a bit.
 
Danoff
In the original, there are only a few words exchanged. Lemme see if I can find the script.

<snip>

That's it. Very few words exchanged. By contrast the new movie rambles on quite a bit.
Click to expand...
Well, that's what you get from Orci and Kurtzman. They grew up in the age of having characters explain their relationship to each other, like "Hello, Dear husband," or, "Bones, you're the ship's doctor, tell me what you think?" They dumb it down and don't trust an audience to get the feel of the scene/understand the relationship, or trust the actors to express it well. And that is all ironic when you consider that Zachary Quinto nails those moments when Spock's human half comes through.
 
I see what you're arguing for now. Before I was taking it as you simply comparing Spock to Kirk and vice versa; as in comparing one who's often straight to the point to someone who's not.

I've got it now and I agree.
 

Similar threads

Populuxe
Star Trek: General Discussion
2
Replies
37
Views
6K
MisterWaffles
MisterWaffles
Splitten65
Why always start last and only have 5 rounds
Replies
23
Views
2K
jonoholland29
jonoholland29
GrumpyOldMan
Why Can't PD Do These Simple Things?
Replies
4
Views
840
GrumpyOldMan
GrumpyOldMan
Sonygamer455
Who Still Plays Star Wars Battlefront II (2005)?
Replies
5
Views
855
Heldenzeit
Heldenzeit
Robin
Star Trek Actor Anton Yelchin Dies In Accident
2 3
Replies
81
Views
6K
Sanji Himura
Sanji Himura

Latest Posts

Back