Star Trek: Into Darkness

[Lakov_Sanite]

əz lȯŋ əz thə wərd ī rīt māks thə sām sau̇nd hwen spō-kən, ī kən-ˈsi-dər it ā vik-t(ə-)rē  

[Merusk]

As long as the word I write makes the same sound when spoken, I consider it a victory.   

I felt compelled to ignore the rest of your post and focus on a minor flaw, finding it highly ironic and illustrative of the original complaint to do so.

[jgsugden]

People may get what you mean, but they tend to discredit your opinion if you look all unedjumacaded caus you're wrds dont loke rite.

[Tannhauser]

I'd like to right here and now coin the term 'grammar troll'.

Your welcome.

[Sir T]

[Venkman]

Beaming to Kronos- they established that he used a transwarp transporter beam to get there, new fangle'd Geordi-style trek gear.

Transwarp beaming means beaming between ships that are traveling at warp speed, not beaming between planets on opposite ends of the quadrant.  If you can beam between systems, why the fuck do you ever bother with spaceships?

It's based on the thing Scotty invented in the last movie, but the plans were pilfered by Section 31 and used as the foundation of the site-to-site beaming tech Khan used after retrieving it from the little ship they stole. This was actually explained in the movie in three parts (which I only remember because I just saw it): first when Kirk zooms in on the footage of Khan retrieving the case from the downed ship, then when Marcus explained it to Kirk and finally later when Scotty is drunkbitching about Starfleet confiscating his ideas.

This doesn't mean this tech is commonplace. Only the super sekret guys had it. If I recall, in this era of Trek (even in this new timeline), beaming is something only super important people can do on Starfleet business. Or maybe that's just the plot rationale they use to explain why nobody seems to have emergency beam out systems in like, say, a fucking conference room of ranking Starfleet brass that suddenly comes under terrorist attack 

[HaemishM]

You are thinking about the tech and its implications way fucking more than anyone involved in the movie ever did. It was lazy writing.

[Sir T]

But but but it had lens flares and some woman in her underwear!!!

[Ironwood]

Yes, but I haven't seen the film, yet I've seen the woman in her underwear.

I win, I think.

[HaemishM]

Yes.

[Reg]

Heh F13 is unrivaled in its ability to throw out negative opinions about practically anything. But don't you think bitching about a movie you haven't even seen is a little over the top?

[jgsugden]

I'd like to right here and now coin the term 'grammar troll'.

Your welcome.

Then nobody else better use my welcome.  MINE!  My .... precious.

[Sir T]

Heh F13 is unrivaled in its ability to throw out negative opinions about practically anything. But don't you think bitching about a movie you haven't even seen is a little over the top?

You're right. We should be bitching about a movie that hasn't even come out yet. BEN AFLECK!!

[Venkman]

You are thinking about the tech and its implications way fucking more than anyone involved in the movie ever did. It was lazy writing.

No. My point was that this one gripe is not valid because they did explain it in the movie. There's a lot worse in the movie to complain about.

And my second paragraph, i agree with you, but that's more about lazy writing across the entire franchise than this one movie

[Ironwood]

But don't you think bitching about a movie you haven't even seen is a little over the top?

You mean me ?  I'm not sure I did....

[Ingmar]

Heh F13 is unrivaled in its ability to throw out negative opinions about practically anything. But don't you think bitching about a movie you haven't even seen is a little over the top?

We do it for games we haven't played, why would we stop there? 

[HaemishM]

But don't you think bitching about a movie you haven't even seen is a little over the top?

No. Any other stupid fucking questions?

[Speedy Cerviche]

#1- Which space? Enterprise and Vengeance were on the very edge of the Neutral Zone iirc, not in orbit above Kronos. I assume the ship they used to disguise themselves as Smugglers (which was a wasted subplot opportunity) didn't make them seems as obvious enemy at first.
#2- see above.
#3- see above, they weren't in orbit.
#4- this one I totally agree with. It didn't bother me much though. I don't remember how many ships they had after the Narada took care of them, but it didn't seem like they had many at the Space Station either.
#5- Didn't bother me in Wrath of Khan either. In both cases it seemed like they just didn't plan on either ever having that problem, or only solving it by evacuating or ejecting the warp core or establishing a level infinite force field or whatever.
#6- I didn't mind the holodeck malfunctions at the time. The Moriarity ones were kinda fun.

1. I should have been more clear, I meant the airspace around starfleet headquarters when they are having the meeting in response to the London bombing. The gunship Khan steals just flies up with no response, blasting away for minutes. We do a better job of restricting airspace now, and put up defensive batteries in really high security areas.


3. OK fine, but you'd think they would be scanning the neutral zone. I thought I remembered them moving in and then breaking down.

4. The fight was beside the moon, so pretty damn close and one would assume in close range of the Earth defence grid. Also at the meeting that took place at event #1, they said it was for all starship captains in the area and there was about a dozen attendees. Even if half the attendees were first officers too, that still leaves like 5-6 ships in area, on alert after the facility bombing.

I'm not trying to get into some nerd rage here, I'm not even a huge star trek fan, and I'm not trying to overthink the tech, I just sat down to watch a 200$ million budget movie and was slapped in the face by these gaping plot holes that can be picked apart so easily is just insulting to the viewer and sloppy writing. Something I would be annoyed at in any production be it star trek or a theatrical play.

[Ingmar]

Regarding #1, I get the impression that Star Trek Earth is supposed to be all Happy One World Utopian Government so there might not be any groups they think they need to protect themselves against in that sense.

[Merusk]

Regarding #1, I get the impression that Star Trek Earth is supposed to be all Happy One World Utopian Government so there might not be any groups they think they need to protect themselves against in that sense.

Yes.  The history only changes at Kirk's birth, not before. So Zephram Cochrine, the 21st century hell, WW3 etc are all still part of the mythos.

[K9]

Regarding #1, I get the impression that Star Trek Earth is supposed to be all Happy One World Utopian Government so there might not be any groups they think they need to protect themselves against in that sense.

Yes.  The history only changes at Kirk's birth, not before. So Zephram Cochrine, the 21st century hell, WW3 etc are all still part of the mythos.

Does that mean Jonathan Frakes exists in this timeline? They should do that in the next movie, go back in time to the point of First contact and have a next generation/borg/JJ Abrams monster mash up!

[tazelbain]

How about a movie about ragetag group of OS,TNG,DS actors go back in time to sabotage the Lost pilot in the hopes to save Star Trek.

[jgsugden]

The whole time travel thing does fall apart if you think about it too much, as the changes in the first JJ movie meant that nothing in the first series or next generation ever took place, including the Time Tunnel episode, the trip of the Enterprise into the 70s, Data going back to meet Mark Twain, or any of the other stuff.  It is also unclear why that group of Time Police from Voyager or Enterprise didn't go back and fix things.  It is almost.... almost... like this is just fiction.

[angry.bob]

I watched this. It was a good movie. It was far, far, far from the worst star trek movie. Honestly, I think it's an even tie with Wrath of Khan. Those people nitpicking about relatively minor plot holes need to take off their blinders and have a hard look at at everything with the Star Trek name on it that's come before. Comparatively the problems with this movie are very small.

The thing that bugged me the most is what always bugs me. Why the fuck doesn't anyone put fuses or circuit breakers in stuff. I realize it's not as cool to have a panel go dark instead of EXPLODE WITH ELECTRICITY, but ffs when the interior of a space ship looks like it's made of sparklers it's just too much.

[Morat20]

I watched this. It was a good movie. It was far, far, far from the worst star trek movie. Honestly, I think it's an even tie with Wrath of Khan. Those people nitpicking about relatively minor plot holes need to take off their blinders and have a hard look at at everything with the Star Trek name on it that's come before. Comparatively the problems with this movie are very small.

The thing that bugged me the most is what always bugs me. Why the fuck doesn't anyone put fuses or circuit breakers in stuff. I realize it's not as cool to have a panel go dark instead of EXPLODE WITH ELECTRICITY, but ffs when the interior of a space ship looks like it's made of sparklers it's just too much.

That's because circuits are for pussies. Those things that explode? Energy conduits. That's not some "electricity" flowing down a "wire" like some sort of cave man. That's a flowing, pulsating river of pure power that's barely constrained by matter.

No seriously, that's about the explanation.

I like the one in Redshirts better -- more specifically, the captain's reaction after the 'scene' was over. "And can we get someone from engineering up here to look at this? Damn consoles shouldn't be exploding from a simple power surge." (Seriously, the best parts of Redshirts -- besides the entire aside about the Ice Sharks -- was the comments of people outside of a scene on how stupid things were inside the scene. Like exploding consoles, lack of seat belts, the crappy inertial dampers that don't seem to work reliably....and why Chekov-analogue doesn't have PTSD from being nearly killed so many times)

[Samwise]

They're "plasma conduits", which I guess there isn't anything like a circuit breaker for?  Although you'd think if the stuff was that dangerous they'd step it down somehow before it got to the consoles.

[Simond]

But then you wouldn't have stuff exploding to show that Serious Shit Is Happening.

[UnSub]

I watched this. It was a good movie. It was far, far, far from the worst star trek movie.

It's a fine sci-fi action movie. It's a terrible Star Trek movie at the same time.

[jgsugden]

I'd rather that we end this movie series and we saw a real reboot on TV that was truer to the source material. I just don't like the options left for storytelling in a universe with cross galaxy transporting, ressurection, and no understanding of the lore of Star Trek.

Space. The final frontier. These are the voyages....

That last word really hits why this concept works as a series better than a movie. The characters, the 'science', and all the other aspects of Star Trek were built to work in episodic television.  You can utilize them in a movie, but they work best on TV. The critique of the next gen movies was that they seemed too much like episodes... which was a factor of them being too true to the universe. The flip has been true of these movies.   To make them films, they lost the essence of trek.

I think you can make good Trek films. And a Trek film seems more profitable, but I think from a perspective of best use of the IP, TV is a better medium. Too bad $ always wins.

[Merusk]

After Enterprise flopped they decided it was  time to retire ST series from the air for a while.  Never mind the flop wasn't because of "Star Trek" fatigue* as much as 'what the fuck is this?' from Trekkies as it tried to be what the new series is vs. the original series.**   I wouldn't expect to even hear it discussed for another 3-4 years, minimum. 

Then there's the whole "fewer people watching TV" thing.

*There had been one or two ST series on-air for 17 years straight at that point. I recall people kicking around, "oh everyone's just tired of Star Trek" when it was flailing.

** You can see the steady march from hard Sci-Fi to "SCI-FI ACTION Soap-Opera" as you go through the IP progression.  TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise.

[Riggswolfe]

After Enterprise flopped they decided it was  time to retire ST series from the air for a while.  Never mind the flop wasn't because of "Star Trek" fatigue* as much as 'what the fuck is this?' from Trekkies as it tried to be what the new series is vs. the original series.**   I wouldn't expect to even hear it discussed for another 3-4 years, minimum.  

Then there's the whole "fewer people watching TV" thing.

*There had been one or two ST series on-air for 17 years straight at that point. I recall people kicking around, "oh everyone's just tired of Star Trek" when it was flailing.

** You can see the steady march from hard Sci-Fi to "SCI-FI ACTION Soap-Opera" as you go through the IP progression.  TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise.

There was definitely Star Trek fatigue but it is hard to argue that Enterprise wasn't very good. From the horrible, horrible theme song to such ridiculous things as ret-conning Orion slave girls to be the true 'masters' in their society Enterprise was just pretty bad.

[Ironwood]

It's very easy to argue that Enterprise wasn't all that good.

[jgsugden]

Fatigue is BS.  If you don't like it, it was because it sucked, not because you're in need of a nap.  If they made a good Star Trek show, it'd be a success. It would only benefit from an established universe with established rules.  However, a bad show (see Voyager and Enterprise) will such despite the advantages of the established universe. 

From what I've heard, I think Enterprise was doomed by the studio.  I've heard a lot of stories about the original design of the show, and it sounded a heck of a lot more interesting than what was put on the screen.  Voyager, on the other hand, never had a chance given the starting cast - only one person in that cast had anything to offer as an actor, and the only improvements they made to the cast had nothing to do with acting. 

[HaemishM]

Voyager's cast was ok - even the CONCEPT was a decent take on the universe. But it was saddled from the get-go with totally shit stories that no one could have acted well with. I mean, I tried to stick with it but after like 2 seasons, I just couldn't take it anymore. And really, the only reason I watched it second season was it came on before Babylon 5 and my buddies and I would hang out on Saturday nights to watch B5 and that was something that soaked up an hour.

[Merusk]

It's very easy to argue that Enterprise wasn't all that good.

Yeah, I wasn't trying to defend it in any way. I hope that came across.

Just stating that ST is done on the TV, possibly forever. Enterprise killed it, bullshit reason was given. Fans get action movies and nothing more for a good, long while. (And if it came back to TV it would be THIS Star Trek, so action TV series, not Sci-Fi.)