Jump to content

Star Trek Into Darkness SPOILERS ALLOWED Discussion Thread


Jay

Recommended Posts

Sorry Uni I don't agree, I find that after a certain amount of time pop culture is fair game to be discusses. But if you want the powers that be to declare a Statute of limitation I'm sure some will abide by it. Again my comment wasn't meant to be spoiler information but a discussion about fans view of Lindelof and his writing choices. He wrote an ending once that pissed off the many of his fans. It's relevant to Star Trek in that he isn't original. Perhaps if his name was Horner so many here would be screaming plagerism.

Now, see? THAT'S a mature, intelligent response.

Obviously there's no such thing as an "official" declaration of what I'm talking about. And of course these subjects are open to general discussion. (I'm not looking to put a gag order on anything, fercryinoutloud.) It's a choice each person can make to be aware of the things they say, understanding that—with a touch of caution—they won't be the one who ruins an ending for someone else. That's why folks use the spoiler boxes and warning banners. It's why this entire thread has been separated from the others. You and Blume may not be bothered at all when you learn about the surprise early . . . but some people are. It's the same as anything else: you show respect and courtesy to others and extend them a friendly hand when you give consideration to their perspective when expressing yourself.

You can choose to be the better person by avoiding giving things away . . . talking around them . . . using the spoiler box . . . or even by utilizing a clever hidden message (one that had me laughing out loud!!!) to keep the wizard behind the curtain for those who want to preserve the magic in Oz. (Y)

- Uni

Link to comment
Share on other sites

little things I loved in the movie were the cars, and the planes.

just becuase we have transporters doesn't mean we give up on our personal transportation, and or flight.

Agreed even in the TNG series finale when it showed the outside of the house Data was living in, it showed a hover car pulling up no doubt which had Geordi and Picard in it.

I don't mind seeing planes and hover cars in a future world like Trek for Earth. In a way I would probably be like McCoy who would be afraid to use the transporter a lot but at the same time would use it if it was the quickest way for away missions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Uni I don't agree, I find that after a certain amount of time pop culture is fair game to be discusses. But if you want the powers that be to declare a Statute of limitation I'm sure some will abide by it. Again my comment wasn't meant to be spoiler information but a discussion about fans view of Lindelof and his writing choices. He wrote an ending once that pissed off the many of his fans. It's relevant to Star Trek in that he isn't original. Perhaps if his name was Horner so many here would be screaming plagerism.

Now, see? THAT'S a mature, intelligent response.

Obviously there's no such thing as an "official" declaration of what I'm talking about. And of course these subjects are open to general discussion. (I'm not looking to put a gag order on anything, fercryinoutloud.) It's a choice each person can make to be aware of the things they say, understanding that—with a touch of caution—they won't be the one who ruins an ending for someone else. That's why folks use the spoiler boxes and warning banners. It's why this entire thread has been separated from the others. You and Blume may not be bothered at all when you learn about the surprise early . . . but some people are. It's the same as anything else: you show respect and courtesy to others and extend them a friendly hand when you give consideration to their perspective when expressing yourself.

You can choose to be the better person by avoiding giving things away . . . talking around them . . . using the spoiler box . . . or even by utilizing a clever hidden message (one that had me laughing out loud!!!) to keep the wizard behind the curtain for those who want to preserve the magic in Oz. (Y)

- Uni

wow the Uni seal of approval. As for the cleverly hidden message, I wrote what I wrote, then it occured to me to do the message, I just picked out the letters, it was a happy accident that I had the appropriate ones.

Hey Trent, I discovered that Hot Wheels has an entire line of Star Trek ships I wasn't aware of. I even found a Furuta Star Trek Voyager ship, the Prometheus for 15 bucks. I expect a Vengance will soon become available, I hope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just online at amazon, haven't bought them yet. Also at Diamond select.

Nearly had a jerrygasm when I saw this.

http://www.diamondselecttoys.com/store/product_images/7/81748/001_big.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, saw it a couple of months ago. Too bad you didn't mention it a couple weeks ago, as the Diamond Select ship line was on sale at Entertainment Earth. Actually recently rebought the old Playmates D that was out in the 90s and am loving it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

didn't know about it until yesterday, you can find it at the big Walmarts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup I know about those lines. I want to get me a Diamond Select Enterprise-D (non future), Enterprise-E, and Klingon Bird Of Prey.

I saw DS's TOS Enterprise promo and looks ugly as sin and not worth the price ($175) they want for it. I wonder if DS will do the J.J.-Prise and Vengeance.

I have DS's Darth Maul which is bad ass as well as their BTTF DeLorean (first one) toy and that too is awesome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup I know about those lines. I want to get me a Diamond Select Enterprise-D (non future), Enterprise-E, and Klingon Bird Of Prey.

I saw DS's TOS Enterprise promo and looks ugly as sin and not worth the price ($175) they want for it. I wonder if DS will do the J.J.-Prise and Vengeance.

I have DS's Darth Maul which is bad ass as well as their BTTF DeLorean (first one) toy and that too is awesome.

we have the original Enterprise, and it's great.

We have several sets of BTTF Deloreans, I gave Dave one from each film for Christmas last year, they are as he says hella cool.

For me the the Hot Wheels are the perfect size. I like the Furuta series because they have ships that the other manufacturers do not. Specifically the Promethius, and the Equinox. My ultimate is the Dauntless, but so far the sets for it that are out there require construction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe, but they've already demonstrated the magic of transwarp beaming. First onto a nearby ship moving away at warp. I can imagine Tom Cruise asking "high warp?" "Is there any other kind?" Secondly to beam to the Klingon home world, which is moving with respect to Earth but we don't know how far away it is.

My point is, you already showed the audience that distance is irrelevant if you can transwarp beam yourself there. The next question that the lay person,non-Trekkie should ask is, why use starships at all? Why not just beam yourself and armies all over the galaxy? You haven't put a limit on their range, energy, or side effects. You don't need space ships anymore, other than to drop the enemy's shields so you can beam in or out. Starships now only slow down the action, but since you still need the iconic Enterprise to fight battles and be your setting, you the filmmakers must compress time as much as possible.

On top of that, now that they have Khan's blood, nobody on earth should die of any disease or anything, short of disintegration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maybe it's the new norm in that alternate timeline.

Khan, the conqueror of Death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Humans are essentially Superman in this alternate timeline now. They can easily and quickly travel to anywhere they want and cannot die

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well that will be one of the best laughs of the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does this mean that Nimoy Spock is now part Khan and thus impervious to disease? When the Reliant detonates in the Mutara Nebula, the Genesis planet coalesces from the debris and teems with life. It is there that Spock's lifeless, soulless body is sent, without the knowledge that the Genesis matrix would resurrect him.

I know, the cells in Khan's blood would be obliterated and no longer retain their healing properties when reconstituted into the planet, and also be extremely diluted anyways. There is no way to assume that the retconned disease resistance even applies due to the mortality rate on Ceti Alpha V, though it never had the opportunity to be shown. Still...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw the film a second time today, and really, I liked it even more than the first time, I loved it.

I also noticed for the first time, is Carol Marcus the future/alternate mother of Kirk's son? I saw Wrath Of Khan again a few days ago, and recall that the mother is called Dr. Marcus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also thought that the actors were terrific in their roles.

Giacchino's score didn't get significantly better unfortunately. It still lacks a personality, Khan's theme is way too subtle to be generally noticed, and isn't introduced properly either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know what old Spock told new Spock, and it sums up the path these reboot movies have taken.

All this has happened before. All this will happen again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know what old Spock told new Spock,

Shatner's pissed that he doesn't get to play old Kirk and even more pissed that I get to play Old Spock. He's going to be even more pissed in part 3 when George Takei and Walter Koenig show up as old Sulu and Chekov.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KHarrison can transport to Quo'nos/Kronos, Quadaffi, khadaffi, Koran, Quaran, but to get from earth to a star ship in orbit you have to take a shuttle.

TAXI, taxi?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KHarrison can transport to Quo'nos/Kronos, Quadaffi, khadaffi, Koran, Quaran, but to get from earth to a star ship in orbit you have to take a shuttle.

TAXI, taxi?

Remember he didn't have the transwarp beaming device with him. It was on his ship when he attacked HQ killing Pike and the other people. Scotty found it in the wreckage after the attack. So with out it, it was a one way trip. Kirk even noticed Khan holding a bag from the security footage after the bombing of that one Section 31 facility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah but that doesn't stop Earth from having transporters to the shipyards in space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What was the name of the shuttlecraft that took our heroes up to Enterprise before chasing Harrison?

I saw TAK and that was it.

You guessed it right—it was the Takei. Nice touch, that.

KHarrison can transport to Quo'nos/Kronos, Quadaffi, khadaffi, Koran, Quaran, but to get from earth to a star ship in orbit you have to take a shuttle.

No. To get from earth to a starship in such a manner that you get to see a bitchin' establishing shot of the Enterprise along with a building riff of the main theme, you have to take a shuttle. This would be why the transporters weren't functioning in TMP and why Sulu flew Admiral Kirk to the Enterprise in TWOK, even though the transporters were presumably working just fine at the time.

- Uni

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and budget constraints.

Yep. They got to reuse the shots from the first film. This would normally be a cheap and obvious stunt, but I think everyone loves those shots so much we've always been willing to give leniency on it.

This whole conversation, however, brings up my other major beef with one of the film's premises. What's with this notion that the Enterprise couldn't beam Spock out of the volcano while they were underwater? Someone said something about "line of sight," but I'm not buying that either. Were they seriously saying the ship had to be hovering directly over the mouth of the volcano in order to transport him? This makes no sense, especially given that they do have transwarp capability now (thanks to Old Spock Primetime being so generous with the equation). And given that even the in the TOS universe they were able to transport people to and from underground positions. And given that they're able to transport people from the interior of other ships, as they did in the last film—"three people from two places onto one pad"—and they certainly didn't have line-of-sight in those instances. (I'd assume it would be much harder to transform through solid tritanium than it would be to go through simple "earthly" elements.)

But whatever.

- Uni

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not sure how old you were Uni, but in 1979 seeing the Enterprise refit for the first time was a very emotional experience, and 34 years later the shot still gives me goosebumps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Old enough to have understood the meaning of it. Honestly, to take six entire minutes from a movie just to show a space ship from a buncha different angles would, in almost any other case, amount to cinematic suicide. But obviously it worked in that movie. And that's because the Enterprise is as much a character in those stories as Kirk, Spock, or McCoy ever were.

It came off just as well in the second movie, because when Sulu said, "I'm delighted—any chance to go aboard the Enterprise," we agreed with him and felt the exactly same way. [side note: has anyone else ever noticed this is an incomplete sentence? And that Sulu opens his mouth to finish the sentence, but they cut away before he can? I've always been intensely curious to know how he finished his thought there.]

- Uni

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was Chekov who said about the line of sight regarding Spock in the volcano. Perhaps in this alternate timeline the transporter technology is a little different. Maybe all the gases, and such from the volcano were playing havoc with the transporters. Then you have this huge ship sitting on the bottom of probably several hundred feet of ocean, so another reason to what was screwing up the transporters.

I still wonder how the hell the Enterprise managed to be in the ocean with out sinking to the bottom.... although I guess the maneuvering thrusters could have been a part but still...

Yes Voyager could land but it was never attempted to land in an ocean. There was that one episode of Voyager that they came across this planet that was an ocean planet. In order to take the Delta Flyer into it they had to do some pretty extensive modifications to it in order to withstand the pressure. So if that's the case...a larger Starship maybe with shields and thrusters ya but even then the pressure of the depth could build up onto the hull.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only obvious "scientific" thing that bothered me was that it was said the transporter can't differentiate between McCoy and the torpedo. What? I mean, you can clearly spot the only living person in that province on Kronos, but the transporter can't differentiate between living things and an inanimate object? How is it then at all possible to transport people out of houses or, for that matter, space shuttles?

And while I'm at it, if they can locate Khan's position on Kronos, why not instantly transport him on board?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Old enough to have understood the meaning of it. Honestly, to take six entire minutes from a movie just to show a space ship from a buncha different angles would, in almost any other case, amount to cinematic suicide. But obviously it worked in that movie. And that's because the Enterprise is as much a character in those stories as Kirk, Spock, or McCoy ever were.

It came off just as well in the second movie, because when Sulu said, "I'm delighted—any chance to go aboard the Enterprise," we agreed with him and felt the exactly same way. [side note: has anyone else ever noticed this is an incomplete sentence? And that Sulu opens his mouth to finish the sentence, but they cut away before he can? I've always been intensely curious to know how he finished his thought there.]

- Uni

I'm not 100% sure but I believe there was some more dialogue about Sulu becoming Captain soon but according to Takei, Shatner ruined the scene. But given that Nicholas Meyer managed to coax one of the finest performances of Kirk out of the Shat I think it may just be on the cutting room floor so to speak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still wonder how the hell the Enterprise managed to be in the ocean with out sinking to the bottom.... although I guess the maneuvering thrusters could have been a part but still...

It was on the bottom. Remember, they were right off the shoreline. Frankly, now that I think about it, the problem is exactly the opposite—how the hell did they manage to get the entire ship underwater within a few hundred feet of the coast. . . ?

That's really the trouble with this entire scene: the more you think on it, the more it unravels. Why would they do any of this in the first place? Consider the likely order of events: you figure they launched the shuttle before submerging, since it's unlikely they would want to open the shuttle bay underwater. So they enter the atmosphere and launch the shuttle, which heads for the volcano. Then they bring their massive starship down no more than a mile away from where the aliens are located, splash down (in what had to make a thunderous racket), and submerge, thinking for some reason that all of this has gone unnoticed. (Spock was direly concerned about the Prime Directive, yet apparently he didn't object to any of this.)

And why do it this way at all? It would probably take more time to settle the ship at the bottom of the brine than it would for the shuttle to reach the volcano and dispatch Spock. Wouldn't it make infinitely more sense to park the Enterprise at high altitude directly above the volcano and just send the shuttle down to do this thing? Presumably it was masked from sight by the smoke and fumes. Then they could've been in perfect position to beam Spock out in case things didn't go as planned. They wouldn't even need to involve the Captain and the doctor in the first place.

Come to think of it . . . what the hell was the point of Kirk and McCoy's "distraction?" Seems doubtful it was to draw the aliens' attention away from the shuttle's approach to the volcano—since the shuttle was already inside the mountain when the two started their run.

So ultimately this whole scene, while a fun little actioneer to kick the movie off, really does demonstrate why Kirk didn't belong in the Captain's chair, didn't it. . . ?

The only obvious "scientific" thing that bothered me was that it was said the transporter can't differentiate between McCoy and the torpedo. What? I mean, you can clearly spot the only living person in that province on Kronos, but the transporter can't differentiate between living things and an inanimate object? How is it then at all possible to transport people out of houses or, for that matter, space shuttles?

It's the same issue as their apparent inability to transport Spock out of the volcano, while being able to beam ship-to-ship in other circumstances. In other words, a giant whatever-burger.

And while I'm at it, if they can locate Khan's position on Kronos, why not instantly transport him on board?

Because they're on the "edge of Klingon space" (though, again, within sight of the planet). In this case, they can probably get away with the excuse that they're out of range. And y'never know—Khan might've been hiding in a volcano, too.

- Uni

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still wonder how the hell the Enterprise managed to be in the ocean with out sinking to the bottom.... although I guess the maneuvering thrusters could have been a part but still...

It was on the bottom. Remember, they were right off the shoreline. Frankly, now that I think about it, the problem is exactly the opposite—how the hell did they manage to get the entire ship underwater within a few hundred feet of the coast. . . ?

That's really the trouble with this entire scene: the more you think on it, the more it unravels. Why would they do any of this in the first place? Consider the likely order of events: you figure they launched the shuttle before submerging, since it's unlikely they would want to open the shuttle bay underwater. So they enter the atmosphere and launch the shuttle, which heads for the volcano. Then they bring their massive starship down no more than a mile away from where the aliens are located, splash down (in what had to make a thunderous racket), and submerge, thinking for some reason that all of this has gone unnoticed. (Spock was direly concerned about the Prime Directive, yet apparently he didn't object to any of this.)

And why do it this way at all? It would probably take more time to settle the ship at the bottom of the brine than it would for the shuttle to reach the volcano and dispatch Spock. Wouldn't it make infinitely more sense to park the Enterprise at high altitude directly above the volcano and just send the shuttle down to do this thing? Presumably it was masked from sight by the smoke and fumes. Then they could've been in perfect position to beam Spock out in case things didn't go as planned. They wouldn't even need to involve the Captain and the doctor in the first place.

Come to think of it . . . what the hell was the point of Kirk and McCoy's "distraction?" Seems doubtful it was to draw the aliens' attention away from the shuttle's approach to the volcano—since the shuttle was already inside the mountain when the two started their run.

So ultimately this whole scene, while a fun little actioneer to kick the movie off, really does demonstrate why Kirk didn't belong in the Captain's chair, didn't it. . . ?

It makes no sense at all.

They could go with the shuttle and deploy a bomb that goes off automatically.

The problem is they couldn't make the perfectly adequate adventure tropes they had in mind into a coherent short piece of storytelling.

I never liked the transporter in Star Trek. And right now it's kind of a baggage from another time. Since now they can make the ships land, like Roddenberry intended, the transporter is a little annoyance that makes everything difficult for writers and thus only works when the writers out themselves in a dead end or need a shortcut. Specially is they can transport people across interstellar distances...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uni is completely right, the entire prologue sequence completely unravels in every aspect if you spend any time thinking about it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it doesn't, you guys are ruining the film by over analyzing it.

You can nit pick almost any action / fantasy / sci-fi film to death and find all kinds of problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh Mark come on. I loved the film and will watch it over and over again for years to come. But the prologue makes no logical sense. Doesn't mean the film is ruined though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It came off just as well in the second movie, because when Sulu said, "I'm delighted—any chance to go aboard the Enterprise," we agreed with him and felt the exactly same way. [side note: has anyone else ever noticed this is an incomplete sentence? And that Sulu opens his mouth to finish the sentence, but they cut away before he can? I've always been intensely curious to know how he finished his thought there.]

- Uni

The rest of his sentence was:

"...however briefly, is always an excuse for nostalgia. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still wonder how the hell the Enterprise managed to be in the ocean with out sinking to the bottom.... although I guess the maneuvering thrusters could have been a part but still...

It was on the bottom. Remember, they were right off the shoreline. Frankly, now that I think about it, the problem is exactly the opposite—how the hell did they manage to get the entire ship underwater within a few hundred feet of the coast. . . ?

That's really the trouble with this entire scene: the more you think on it, the more it unravels. Why would they do any of this in the first place? Consider the likely order of events: you figure they launched the shuttle before submerging, since it's unlikely they would want to open the shuttle bay underwater. So they enter the atmosphere and launch the shuttle, which heads for the volcano. Then they bring their massive starship down no more than a mile away from where the aliens are located, splash down (in what had to make a thunderous racket), and submerge, thinking for some reason that all of this has gone unnoticed. (Spock was direly concerned about the Prime Directive, yet apparently he didn't object to any of this.)

And why do it this way at all? It would probably take more time to settle the ship at the bottom of the brine than it would for the shuttle to reach the volcano and dispatch Spock. Wouldn't it make infinitely more sense to park the Enterprise at high altitude directly above the volcano and just send the shuttle down to do this thing? Presumably it was masked from sight by the smoke and fumes. Then they could've been in perfect position to beam Spock out in case things didn't go as planned. They wouldn't even need to involve the Captain and the doctor in the first place.

Come to think of it . . . what the hell was the point of Kirk and McCoy's "distraction?" Seems doubtful it was to draw the aliens' attention away from the shuttle's approach to the volcano—since the shuttle was already inside the mountain when the two started their run.

So ultimately this whole scene, while a fun little actioneer to kick the movie off, really does demonstrate why Kirk didn't belong in the Captain's chair, didn't it. . . ?

The only obvious "scientific" thing that bothered me was that it was said the transporter can't differentiate between McCoy and the torpedo. What? I mean, you can clearly spot the only living person in that province on Kronos, but the transporter can't differentiate between living things and an inanimate object? How is it then at all possible to transport people out of houses or, for that matter, space shuttles?

It's the same issue as their apparent inability to transport Spock out of the volcano, while being able to beam ship-to-ship in other circumstances. In other words, a giant whatever-burger.

And while I'm at it, if they can locate Khan's position on Kronos, why not instantly transport him on board?

Because they're on the "edge of Klingon space" (though, again, within sight of the planet). In this case, they can probably get away with the excuse that they're out of range. And y'never know—Khan might've been hiding in a volcano, too.

- Uni

Uni,

You might be over analyzing the scene. I went to a writers guild talk given by the screenwriter of the film, Damon Lindelof, where he said the point of the cold opening was in the style of a James Bond opening that actually has nothing to do with the rest of the film, but shows more about the character's adventures already in progress. Lindelof thought of this scene as the act 3 climax of a movie you've never been shown - where all the obstacles collide with their biggest level of intensity though the setup is not shown. Of course, in bond movies, you'll start of with Bond tied to a chair getting his ass kicked or something...so the point isn't how he got there and what lead to that moment but that we're in the middle of a narrow escape and if you start thinking about it too logically, the scene will unravel - similarly to most Bond openings. I think it succeeded at that, but also shows the goal was excitement rather than plot structural integrity. Basically, try not to think about that sequence too deeply and just enjoy it on a visceral level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it doesn't, you guys are ruining the film by over analyzing it.

You can nit pick almost any action / fantasy / sci-fi film to death and find all kinds of problems.

Phil Farrand didn't single-handedly ruin the entire Star Trek franchise with his Nitpicker books. He just added another dimension to the fun. This is the same thing.

Sure, like you said, it's possible to pick something to death. But in this case it doesn't require "over-analyzing" anything. Like we said, it only takes a moment's attention and the thing starts falling apart on its own.

Oh Mark come on. I loved the film and will watch it over and over again for years to come. But the prologue makes no logical sense. Doesn't mean the film is ruined though!

100% this. (Y)

You might be over analyzing the scene. I went to a writers guild talk given by the screenwriter of the film, Damon Lindelof, where he said the point of the cold opening was in the style of a James Bond opening that actually has nothing to do with the rest of the film, but shows more about the character's adventures already in progress. Lindelof thought of this scene as the act 3 climax of a movie you've never been shown - where all the obstacles collide with their biggest level of intensity though the setup is not shown. Of course, in bond movies, you'll start of with Bond tied to a chair getting his ass kicked or something...so the point isn't how he got there and what lead to that moment but that we're in the middle of a narrow escape and if you start thinking about it too logically, the scene will unravel - similarly to most Bond openings. I think it succeeded at that, but also shows the goal was excitement rather than plot structural integrity. Basically, try not to think about that sequence too deeply and just enjoy it on a visceral level.

Actually, that's an excellent take on this. It fits with the direction Abrams seems to be going with this film (and this series). Don't get me wrong on any of this: I'm not suggesting that they should've done it the way I laid out. That actually would've been pretty boring—and I like the way the movie opened. I enjoyed the chase, seeing the Enterprise underwater, watching the liftoff, all of that. As Kirk might say to Spock . . . it may not have been logical, but it was definitely cool.

It came off just as well in the second movie, because when Sulu said, "I'm delighted—any chance to go aboard the Enterprise," we agreed with him and felt the exactly same way. [side note: has anyone else ever noticed this is an incomplete sentence? And that Sulu opens his mouth to finish the sentence, but they cut away before he can? I've always been intensely curious to know how he finished his thought there.]

- Uni

The rest of his sentence was:

"...however briefly, is always an excuse for nostalgia. "

Wow. That's kinda . . . cheesy, actually. Maybe it's better Nick decided to cut that out after all.

- Uni

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's a good line, it was supposed to have been years after they were on active duty on the enterprise for these characters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I've never cared for the most regarding the J.J.-Prise is the bridge. It looks like a cobbled together set from a few different designs. TOS E, Voyager, Enterprise-E, and a couple of others. The layout is clunky and it's too flashy. A lot of people have dubbed it the "Apple Store" and it looks like that.

At least with the bridge for the Vengeance it was better in design for the layout. It looked similar to the Kelvin's bridge which I didn't mind that at all.

Here's my attempt to re-draw the J.J.-Prise to give it more balance. I may end up re-drawing at some point.

MyJJ-Prise.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just saw it.

When the (supposedly) big revelation came. Cumberbatch declaring that he was Khan. My actual though was, and I swear that this is true.

"No shit, Sherlock!"

Overall the story is better, less lazy then the 2009 film. I like the way it poses morality questions.

All of this has been done before though, and better. The rogue admiral manipulating a terrorist attack on Earth comes straight out of Deep Space Nine.

The main cast is great and have really taken to their roles. Kirk and Spock have a few great scenes together. Benedict makes a good villian, he is underused though.

Alice Eve...why is she in the film? What's the point of her character? Yes there was a Carol Marcus in TWOK, but she had a purpose. I enjoyed the redundant underwear scene though.

The score is less ham-fisted and obtrusive then Gia's previous Trek score.

In many ways this film is a combination of Space Seed, TWOK and Nemesis I really question the judgement of the film makers to basically do a remake after cleaning the slate in the last film. But overall they pulled it off. With a few exceptions.

The Kirk death scene lifts several lines of dialogue from the Spock death-scene. It's distracting! Yes we get it. It's a role reversal! We get the point, you don't need to re-use lines to make it even more clear. Whatever emotional effect the scene could have had (it's acted well) is diminished because they were shoving Spock's death scene from TWOK in my face!

I loved the opening on the weird ass Red Planet, Very Indiana Jones. The scenes in London with Mickey The Idiot from Doctor Who were also well done.

More cool shots of The Enterprise this time, though I do wish they could just give us a few 6 or 7 second shots of just the enterprise filmed by a static or slow moving camera.

Harrison being Khan was the worst kept secret ever, but J J made up for it by his plot twist of NOT destroying The Enterprise. The trailer was cleverly edited to suggest this. Well done.

Star Trek Into Darkness is a good film with a flawed concept. Just like the 2009 film, which I also loved (even though people like Mark Olivarez think I hated it).

I can't say if it's an improvement to the previous one, but it's certainly a continuation.



You guys are way too picky. It stil looks like Star Trek. The designs are no more bland than any previous Trek.

Mark, I love you (in a completely hetero way).

But at some point you gotta drop this "you guys are complaining way too much" attitude!

Most here enjoyed the film. But we certainly recognize it's flaws, and are discussing them. You however usually don't see any flaws, everything is great and dandy, or are not interested in talking about them. Which works great in a marriage, but not on an MB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just saw it.

When the (supposedly) big revelation came. Cumberbatch declaring that he was Khan. My actual though was, and I swear that this is true.

"No shit, Sherlock!"

Overall the story is better, less lazy then the 2009 film. I like the way it poses morality questions.

All of this has been done before though, and better. The rogue admiral manipulating a terrorist attack on Earth comes straight out of Deep Space Nine.

The main cast is great and have really taken to their roles. Kirk and Spock have a few great scenes together. Benedict makes a good villian, he is underused though.

Alice Eve...why is she in the film? What's the point of her character? Yes there was a Carol Marcus in TWOK, but she had a purpose. I enjoyed the redundant underwear scene though.

The score is less ham-fisted and obtrusive then Gia's previous Trek score.

In many ways this film is a combination of Space Seed, TWOK and Nemesis I really question the judgement of the film makers to basically do a remake after cleaning the slate in the last film. But overall they pulled it off. With a few exceptions.

The Kirk death scene lifts several lines of dialogue from the Spock death-scene. It's distracting! Yes we get it. It's a role reversal! We get the point, you don't need to re-use lines to make it even more clear. Whatever emotional effect the scene could have had (it's acted well) is diminished because they were shoving Spock's death scene from TWOK in my face!

I loved the opening on the weird ass Red Planet, Very Indiana Jones. The scenes in London with Mickey The Idiot from Doctor Who were also well done.

More cool shots of The Enterprise this time, though I do wish they could just give us a few 6 or 7 second shots of just the enterprise filmed by a static or slow moving camera.

Harrison being Khan was the worst kept secret ever, but J J made up for it by his plot twist of NOT destroying The Enterprise. The trailer was cleverly edited to suggest this. Well done.

Star Trek Into Darkness is a good film with a flawed concept. Just like the 2009 film, which I also loved (even though people like Mark Olivarez think I hated it).

I can't say if it's an improvement to the previous one, but it's certainly a continuation.

You guys are way too picky. It stil looks like Star Trek. The designs are no more bland than any previous Trek.

Mark, I love you (in a completely hetero way).

But at some point you gotta drop this "you guys are complaining way too much" attitude!

Most here enjoyed the film. But we certainly recognize it's flaws, and are discussing them. You however usually don't see any flaws, everything is great and dandy, or are not interested in talking about them. Which works great in a marriage, but not on an MB.

I believe I've only said it twice.

I'm just perplexed as to how people can say the designs are bland when the first 10 films were just as full with bland and ugly designs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes the warp distances bother me too. You could argue in the first film that since Kirk was unconscious there's no way to tell how long it took them to get to Vulcan, but they really have no excuse this time.

I saw the 2009 film today. After Kirk passes out these is a scene on the bridge where Checkov says they are about to arrive. Pike then asks Checkov what his name is.

If the trip to Vulcan tooks days, Pike would have asked sooner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.