Star Trek: Into Darkness trailer and thoughts

[Fredrik]

The second movie was offensive to vulcanologists. The first one was offensive to people who study Vulcans.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I'm seeing it tomorrow. Rewatched the first one last night. Sooooo excited :)

 

[Julio R]

I thought it was good. I saw it today :D

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

... (You haven't seen any of the Pegg/Frost comedies?) ... Benedict Cumberbatch has become a pretty big name recently, because of the success of Sherlock.

Hot Fuzz continues to be one of my favorite movies to watch.

And Sherlock is brilliant.

On topic, I'm visiting my uncle this upcoming weekend, and he's a huge Star Trek fan, although I have no idea of his opinion on these newer movies. However, I'm sure we'll still go out to see that, and possibly Iron Man 3 (his kids, 6, and 3, know the names of pretty much all superheroes and always dress up as a Marvel character for Halloween. He's a pretty cool dad.).

 

[OmCheeto]

...
On topic, I'm visiting my uncle this upcoming weekend, and he's a huge Star Trek fan, although I have no idea of his opinion on these newer movies. ...

If he's a fan, then he should like it. Even if he weren't a fan, he should like it.
I watched an interview last night, after watching the movie, and JJ mentioned a problem; "How does one make a movie, where people have had 47 years of Star Trek experience, and others, have had none."

I think he did it.

I would provide a link to the above image, but it includes commentary, which might spoil things.

But I'll provide a pair of nasty little spoilers:

Spoiler

The highest score was provided by a pair of 50+ women? I can only surmise that it was "that" conversation during the movie, that made me spit on the bald headed man sitting in front of me. It was that funny.

Spoiler

Spock is gay. Or, at the very least, it explains how Sarek swooned Amanda into marrying an alien. Good god, Vulcans are freakin' smooth!

 

[OmCheeto]

ps. Hopefully, Greg is in the theater, and doesn't ban my silly butt.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Just got back from seeing it! Definitely lots of fun and some nice plot twists. It was fairly long, but it almost felt short. There was a lot they could have further developed.

 

[OmCheeto]

just got back from seeing it! Definitely lots of fun and some nice plot twists. It was fairly long, but it almost felt short. There was a lot they could have further developed.

Sequel !! :!)

 

[FlexGunship]

Saw it last night.

Way better than the first in the reboot series (probably because they didn't spend half the movie explaining why there's a reboot). I do want to share one complaint, though (I don't think it's a spoiler or anything, but I'll hide it anyway) that's been bugging me a lot.

Spoiler

I know Star Trek is not a bastion of realism, and I especially know that J.J. Abrams failed 3rd grade science when he did his science fair project on lens flare. That being said... losing power in your spaceship does not cause you to "fall out of orbit." In fact, the EXACT opposite is true. You're totally stuck there!

Oh, and what are the odds that, at warp, you'll accidentally come out 250,000 miles from your destination? At warp 1, that's like, 1.3 seconds away and Sulu had that warp-lever-thing pegged. It wasn't even really an inconvenience.

That being said, the re-imagining of Khan is pretty decent. I'm a solid Cumberbatch fan anyway, ever since Sherlock.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Flex I took it that they weren't in orbit in the first place, rather in typical SF fashion they were hovering with antigravity or some such. Either way though you're right in pointing out that science isn't rigorous here, that's not typically a bad thing as long as it's entertaining but it can make it shallow.

 

[FlexGunship]

Flex I took it that they weren't in orbit in the first place, rather in typical SF fashion they were hovering with antigravity or some such. Either way though you're right in pointing out that science isn't rigorous here, that's not typically a bad thing as long as it's entertaining but it can make it shallow.

I've recently had this discussion with a friend, and this is my only argument to "antigravity" (setting aside the physics of actual antigravity):

Spoiler

Assume they arrived about 500km from the surface of the moon. Add in the radius of the moon (~1700km), assume a mass of 7*10^22kg and solve for orbital velocity. I get about ~1.5km/s give or take a couple hundred m/s. Calculate the force of acceleration due to gravity at that distance and you get about 1m/s. After 25 minutes (25*60=1500) it doesn't make sense to point your antigrav stuff down... you should've been pointing it tangential and gone into orbit. I mean, it doesn't take more than 45 seconds to run through that calculation.

Furthermore, when they lost power... why are they falling towards Earth? Earth's pull is three orders of magnitude smaller at that distance. It's not even a competition! Moon wins!

It's as though they define the entire universe in terms of "some altitude above San Francisco."

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Yup it still doesn't make much sense. But if we start picking at the physics of soft science fiction the whole thing falls apart lol.

 

[OmCheeto]

I've recently had this discussion with a friend, and this is my only argument to "antigravity" (setting aside the physics of actual antigravity):

Spoiler

Assume they arrived about 500km from the surface of the moon. Add in the radius of the moon (~1700km), assume a mass of 7*10^22kg and solve for orbital velocity. I get about ~1.5km/s give or take a couple hundred m/s. Calculate the force of acceleration due to gravity at that distance and you get about 1m/s. After 25 minutes (25*60=1500) it doesn't make sense to point your antigrav stuff down... you should've been pointing it tangential and gone into orbit. I mean, it doesn't take more than 45 seconds to run through that calculation.

Furthermore, when they lost power... why are they falling towards Earth? Earth's pull is three orders of magnitude smaller at that distance. It's not even a competition! Moon wins!

It's as though they define the entire universe in terms of "some altitude above San Francisco."

Pfft!

Can you imagine how boring that movie would have been sitting through 3 hours of; "Captain, it will now be only 1 more hour of drifting silently through space, until we reach the upper atmosphere, and start burning up!"

Just pretend, in the future, that they edited out the real physics empty time, where Kirk and the crew played charades, or pictionary, or are watching "Fast and Furious 893", or something.

 

[Julio R]

Pfft!
Just pretend, in the future, that they edited out the real physics empty time, where Kirk and the crew played charades, or pictionary, or are watching "Fast and Furious 893", or something.

Ha! Priceless comment! :D

 

[OmCheeto]

Ha! Priceless comment! :D

I was 16 once. Believe it or not.

-----------------------
You can see more, in the "Man Cave" section of PF called "Automotive" something or other.

 

[DiracPool]

Oh, yeah, Saw it last weekend at the Regal RPX in 3D, that's Regal's version of IMAX.

I have a one word review for the movie (don't worry, it's not a spoiler):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajsNJtnUb7c

 

[dkotschessaa]

Finally watched. My wife actually went along, because she likes sherlock/eggs benedict cumberbuns or whatever his name is.

I just had to shut off the voices in my head going "huh?" and go along with the ride and pretend it was something completely other than Star trek (Except when I had to explain stuff to my wife).

Then we watched Iron man III in the same theatre. I have the best wife ever.

-Dave K

 

[OmCheeto]

Finally watched. My wife actually went along, because she likes sherlock/eggs benedict cumberbuns or whatever his name is.

I just had to shut off the voices in my head going "huh?" and go along with the ride and pretend it was something completely other than Star trek (Except when I had to explain stuff to my wife).

Then we watched Iron man III in the same theatre. I have the best wife ever.

-Dave K

You do realize of course, that everyone at the forum, wants to kill you, and marry your wife.

 

[OmCheeto]

Oh, yeah, Saw it last weekend at the Regal RPX in 3D, that's Regal's version of IMAX.

I have a one word review for the movie (don't worry, it's not a spoiler):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajsNJtnUb7c

Noooooo!

I so want Shakespeare back...

Or, at least, that guy from "The Sound of Muzak"...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg58hVEY5Og

Cry Havoc! And, and let slip the dogs of war...

I think I'll watch it in 3D this weekend.

 

[dkotschessaa]

You do realize of course, that everyone at the forum, wants to kill you, and marry your wife.

Used to it.

 

[DiracPool]

Oh, yeah, Saw it last weekend at the Regal RPX in 3D, that's Regal's version of IMAX.

I have a one word review for the movie (don't worry, it's not a spoiler):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajsNJtnUb7c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nV9jqtHbAK4

You decide...Once more, WITH PASSION!

 

[Janus]

Okay, how many noticed this in the scene where Kirk meets with Admiral Marcus:

There is a line up of models on a table/counter. Starting with a Wright biplane working its way up through a Saturn V and space shuttle and beyond.
It included:
1. The Phoenix (Cochrane's warp ship from "First Contact")
2. The ship that is the second from the right in this shot from STTMP, which shows ships that were named "Enterprise".
3. The Enterprise (NX-01) from the series "Enterprise".
4. The Kelvin (Star Trek 2009)
5. The Enterprise (NCC-1701)

 

[davenn]

Okay, how many noticed this in the scene where Kirk meets with Admiral Marcus:

There is a line up of models on a table/counter. Starting with a Wright biplane working its way up through a Saturn V and space shuttle and beyond.
It included:
1. The Phoenix (Cochrane's warp ship from "First Contact")
2. The ship that is the second from the right in this shot from STTMP, which shows ships that were named "Enterprise".
3. The Enterprise (NX-01) from the series "Enterprise".
4. The Kelvin (Star Trek 2009)
5. The Enterprise (NCC-1701)

dang nice spotting, Janus

I saw the lineup in passing but didnt make those connections

I enjoyed the movie, yup as did my wife also, she wasnt really into the original series or DS9
but next gen and voyager and the last ~ 4 movies she enjoyed.

I was interested to see the retake on Kirk's old nemesis, had to do some background explaining to my wife (cuz of her lack of the orig series knowledge)

Yup she also enjoys the Ironman series of movies

2 great movies, its nice to escape the harsh realities of life for an hour or so and get lost in some sci fi fantasy

Dave

 

[dkotschessaa]

On a related note, giving DS9 another go today on Netflix...

 

[jostpuur]

The beginning was good. It was funny, and had a nice trekkie feeling.

The ending was bad. Everybody's happy but McCoy and Scott are complaining about something and Kirk says "take us out there" (or something like that...). Isn't that getting little old? Or "archetypical"? (I'm not sure if I'm using a word correctly, but something like that...)

I guess Star Trek isn't Star Trek if McCoy and Scott aren't complaining about something, but IMO the writers should put some effort into not going too cheap.

In between the start and end, and among the complaining McCoy and Scott, was an ok action story. It dealt with the theme "fighting evil with evil" critically, so I wouldn't complain about the politics. Fits our time well.

 

[Mordred]

good movie, loved some of the scenes, still prefer Khan from the motion picture. He knew how to stress his superiority lol.

the one part I laughed at was when Khan teleported from Earth to some planet in Klingon space in the neutral zone? If they could teleport that far why do they need starships lol.

in the original series the neutral zone resulted from battling the klingons during the 5 year mission. For that matter that was when khan was first introduced was during the 5 year mission.

In the movie the neutral zone was already in place.

still a good movie but easy to nit pick apart lol

 

[davenn]

good movie, loved some of the scenes, still prefer Khan from the motion picture. He knew how to stress his superiority lol.

the one part I laughed at was when Khan teleported from Earth to some planet in Klingon space in the neutral zone? If they could teleport that far why do they need starships lol.

in the original series the neutral zone resulted from battling the klingons during the 5 year mission. For that matter that was when khan was first introduced was during the 5 year mission.

In the movie the neutral zone was already in place.

still a good movie but easy to nit pick apart lol

true, true ... agree with a lot of that

still a good movie but easy to nit pick apart lol

I guess the thing is, that these latest couple of star trek movies are introducing a whole new generation to the genre. Most of which have either never heard of the original series or even born when it came out. So those inconsistencies with the timeline etc would not be known to them and hence wouldn't matter.

Even being a ST diehard, I can still happily accept this latest rendition as a different take on the old theme.

Many other movies are doing that these days, look at the variations between the original and the remake of movies such as ...
The day the Earth stood still
War of the Worlds
Superman and the latest rendition ... Man of Steel

to name several

and to be honest, even with the low tech presence in the old versions, I still prefer them

cheers
Dave

 

[davenn]

Cry Havoc! And, and let slip the dogs of war...

this quote from Shakespeare got me googling for other references used in star trek
there's quite a bit of info out there, a couple for example ...

http://public.wsu.edu/~delahoyd/shakespeare/star.trek.html

and

http://englishscholar.com/shakespeare_startrek.htm

similar in their listings, but still fun to read through :)

Dave

 

[Janus]

good movie, loved some of the scenes, still prefer Khan from the motion picture. He knew how to stress his superiority lol.

the one part I laughed at was when Khan teleported from Earth to some planet in Klingon space in the neutral zone? If they could teleport that far why do they need starships lol.

Here's the only explanation that I can come with. This ability is only due to Mr. Scott's trans-warp beaming equations. Originally, he did not come up we these equations until much later. The only reason they have them now is that "future Spock" was aware of them. I assume that Scott developed these equations some time after the TNG episode "Relics".
The Starfleet of the new time line has classified this knowledge. Khan was able to steal or fabricate a working unit. It could even be that the ability to transport that far a distance was a modification that Khan made himself.

I assume that trans-warp beaming only works if you already have coordinates for your destination. You would still need ships to explore and plot out unexplored regions.

in the original series the neutral zone resulted from battling the klingons during the 5 year mission. For that matter that was when khan was first introduced was during the 5 year mission.

In the movie the neutral zone was already in place.

There never was a Klingon/Federation neutral zone in the original series. the Neutral zone was between the Federation and the Romulans. The Federation and Klingons had a "disputed area" established by the Organian Peace Treaty. In the Treaty, both parties could travel in that area freely, but to claim a planet in it they had to show that they develop it the best. (An example was the dispute over Sherman's planet.

The whole idea of a Klingon neutral zone was introduced in "The Wrath of Khan" with the Kobyashi Maru test. My guess is that the original script was to use the Romulan Neutral Zone, but the studio, decided that since they already had stock footage of Klingon ships from the First movie, they could save money by replacing Romulan with Klingon in the script. One give away is when it is stated that "Klingons don't take prisoners". This was not something established for Klingons, but was established for the Romulans.

still a good movie but easy to nit pick apart lol

Just about any movie can be nit picked apart.

 

[HayleySarg]

I could type out a novel about how I truly feel, details and all. What it comes down to, is:

This was a great movie, but in my eyes, not the best Trek movie. I feel that for the sake of making a $$$ film, they gave away a little too much of the true identity of Star Trek.

I also felt it was a lot of bang, and not enough story telling. Trans-warp was sort of a deus ex machina. Oh hey this bad guy needs to get far away, fast, so let's uh, yeah, portable transwarp. Ugh. But hey, good movie or what it's worth.

On a related note, giving DS9 another go today on Netflix...

Good for you. It took some time for me to truly enjoy DS9, but now that I'm a bit mature, I'm finding it to be enjoyable. It's a lot less tech and a lot more morals/ethics. I feel they did okay with character development. My only complaint is that Jadzia Dax is more for looking at than doing science. She only has a few great science-officer moments. But otherwise, she's an amazing character imho. I know some people don't feel that way. Then again, I also like Janeway. So, maybe take my opinion with a grain of salt.

 

[Janus]

I could type out a novel about how I truly feel, details and all. What it comes down to, is:

This was a great movie, but in my eyes, not the best Trek movie. I feel that for the sake of making a $$$ film, they gave away a little too much of the true identity of Star Trek.

It goes with the territory. Star Trek translates best as a TV series; that's where its "identity" shines. There you can do an episode like "Data's Day", which is not something a movie audience would sit through. And to be quite frank, I don't think any movie could truly capture the "identity" of Star Trek, because so many people identify with Star trek in so many different way,

Trans-warp was sort of a deus ex machina. Oh hey this bad guy needs to get far away, fast, so let's uh, yeah, portable transwarp. Ugh. But hey, good movie or what it's worth.

To be fair, the transporter itself is much the same. It was only introduced as a way to get our characters into the story as fast as possible. And that in itself led to its own problems. They always had to come up with reasons why they just couldn't beam a landing party out of trouble. Just think of how many episodes started with a party beaming down perfectly fine, and then something happens to interfere with the transporter.

 

[OmCheeto]

Here's the only explanation that I can come with. This ability is only due to Mr. Scott's trans-warp beaming equations. Originally, he did not come up we these equations until much later. The only reason they have them now is that "future Spock" was aware of them. I assume that Scott developed these equations some time after the TNG episode "Relics".
The Starfleet of the new time line has classified this knowledge. Khan was able to steal or fabricate a working unit. It could even be that the ability to transport that far a distance was a modification that Khan made himself.

I assume that trans-warp beaming only works if you already have coordinates for your destination. You would still need ships to explore and plot out unexplored regions.
There never was a Klingon/Federation neutral zone in the original series. the Neutral zone was between the Federation and the Romulans. The Federation and Klingons had a "disputed area" established by the Organian Peace Treaty. In the Treaty, both parties could travel in that area freely, but to claim a planet in it they had to show that they develop it the best. (An example was the dispute over Sherman's planet.

Just about any movie can be nit picked apart.

I seem to remember that Roddenberry's original concept was to have no ships, and simply have people "beam" around the galaxy/universe. But the studio execs wouldn't buy having a level zero species having much fun with level 2 species technologies.

I think I agree with the execs decision.

I mean really, we hadn't even been to the moon in '66.
It was all Corvettes and non-hybrid Ferraris back then.

Varooom!

 

[Borg]

Has anyone seen the "honest trailer" for the previous movie?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTfBH-XFdSc

Here's the one for Into Darkness. So, the common thread in the series is now lens flares?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6B22Uy7SBe4