Star Trek Into Darkness SPOILERS ALLOWED Discussion Thread

[Wojo 2,453]

He can thank Captain Sulu for telling him they were long range torpedoes. 72 normal photons wouldn't have been enough.

[Jay 37,369]

Here's what I don't get - in the original series, there were 84 cryotubes, but only 72 had living survivors inside. One of which was Khan.

In the reboot timeline, they revived Khan only, but still have 72 other tubes. Shouldn't there be 71 other survivors besides Khan, not Khan + 72?

I guess the argument will be that that they found the Botany Bay earlier in this timeline than before, so one extra person survived...

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Hey Uni... King Kong fell off the Empire State Building, Bruce Willis is dead, Titanic Sinks, and it was a real ship for those stupid teenagers who didn't know, Keyser Soza is Kevin Spacy, Darth Vader is Luke's Father, Kristen shot JR, St Elsewhere was just the imaginations of an autistic child, Ed Norton did it in Primal Fear, Newhart was just a dream that Bob Newhart had on the Bob Newhart show, Soylent Green is PEOPLE, Planet of the Apes is EARTH,

Mark O is correct a character like Captain Kirk, not abrams/pine's version, deserves a noble death.

A Hero's death, Kirk died in Generations much like Tasha Yar died in STTNG Skin of Evil Episode.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

I went back and watched Space Seed last night. Some of it was extremely cheesy. The whole thing is really carried by Montalban.

That said...the scene where Khan intercepts Kirk in Engineering and smashes the phaser is one of those "timeless" bits of TV. Really well done. The music helps as well.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Here's what I don't get - in the original series, there were 84 cryotubes, but only 72 had living survivors inside. One of which was Khan.

In the reboot timeline, they revived Khan only, but still have 72 other tubes. Shouldn't there be 71 other survivors besides Khan, not Khan + 72?

I guess the argument will be that that they found the Botany Bay earlier in this timeline than before, so one extra person survived...

the butterfly effect Jason, Praxis has blown up, Vulcan destroyed, Kirk's father died, Khan found before Kirk finds him. Star Fleet encountering the Gorn before the 5 year mission.

[Uni 306]

Some reviewers don't seem to get this -- that the business with the Enterprise going after Khan with the torpedoes in tow is MARCUS'S evil scheme, not Khan's. It's an elegant way for Marcus to tie up all his loose ends. Khan is very quick to figure out what's happening, and this probably confuses some people into assuming that he knew all about it beforehand. But that's simply not the case. What happens is that his "superior intellect" puts it all together -- but only AFTER Kirk goes rogue and decides to warn him about the torpedoes. If Kirk had just fired the torpedoes as ordered, Khan would have probably been out of luck.

But Kirk DOES warn Khan, and Khan has the information to put two and two together. Now his best chance of survival lies with Kirk. He doesn't even have to deceive Kirk at this point. Even if Kirk knows he's being manipulated (and he does), the mutual threat of Marcus will ensure that Kirk has no choice but to work with him. All Khan has to do is wait for a moment when Kirk's guard is down and he can seize the upper hand. Which he does.

I haven't yet seen the Half in the Bag review, and I haven't yet encountered anyone having a problem with this plot line, so I wasn't aware that anyone had brought it up this way. Which is why I'm surprised anyone interpreted it differently than what you just stated, John. Once you find out that Marcus was the one who used Khan—and not the other way around—all this pretty much falls into place. Khan saves Kirk, Spock, and Uhura on Kronos for no other reason than to find out the status of the torpedoes Sulu stated were on board the Enterprise. That's why he surrenders immediately upon learning their number.

That's my takeaway, anyhow. There may indeed be plot holes in the film, but it's not nearly as nonsensical as the Red Letter Media crowd would have you believe.

I saw fewer actual plot holes than the sort of thing Phil Farand and Nitpicker Command will be seizing on the first chance they get—inconsistencies and problems with the staging and explanation of several elements. (I've got a big one I'm thinking through even now. I may have to post it soon.)

Hey Uni... King Kong fell off the Empire State Building, Bruce Willis is dead, Titanic Sinks, and it was a real ship for those stupid teenagers who didn't know, Keyser Soza is Kevin Spacy, Darth Vader is Luke's Father, Kristen shot JR, St Elsewhere was just the imaginations of an autistic child, Ed Norton did it in Primal Fear, Newhart was just a dream that Bob Newhart had on the Bob Newhart show, Soylent Green is PEOPLE, Planet of the Apes is EARTH,

This is your response. Unbelievable.

And yet . . . not so unbelievable, really. No surprises here. This is you to a T. (I'm overwhelmingly tempted to use this quote as my signature, but out of respect for those who haven't seen Soylent Green yet. . . .)

- Uni

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Life is a spoiler Uni. Keep up with the times.

seriously you're whining about it comes of as so high class, I so wish I was on the pedastal you sit. Clearly your crap doesn't stink. If we take your attitude then how can any discussion go forth? We must not discuss the Empire Strikes Back because some haven't seen it. A really bad film like Soylent Green should not have the ending revealed, The ending of Planet of the Apes is a secret not to be spoken of, despite the cover of the dvd which gives the ending away. I agree we shouldn't tell newcomers to Into Darkness that Khan is really and truly the character played by Cumberbatch, it's new. But at some point discussion will happen and people who don't know the ending will be spoiled. The ending of Lost has been in discussion on this board for some time, it's been on other entertainment sites for quite awhile, it's been discussed in other media that fans are quite upset with Lindelof about his ending which he lied to the fans about. So tell us when shows can or cannot be discussed, and at what level of revelation can we comment. You're the lord and God who is offended, smite me and make the world new again.

[Delorean90 42]

What the hell does that even mean?

[Faleel 5,353]

I think its a personal attack...

[Uni 306]

I think its a personal attack...

More like a poor attempt at one.

Moving on. . . .

- Uni

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I think its a personal attack...

More like a poor attempt at one.

Moving on. . . .

- Uni

go buy some mad dog 20/20.

[Jay 37,369]

Epic fail

[JoeinAR 1,949]

you knew it was just a matter of time before the smartest person in the room chimed in.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

People treat spoilers like some great tragedy.

If it's so life or death stay off the internet, lock your doors, and close your blinds.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

my comments about lost were not meant to spoil anything because at this point I thought enough time had passed.

but apparently it injured uni, which was not my intention. but after this I'm gun shy, hell I was talking about Twilight Zone at work with some co-workers but this big girl at work who thinks spandex and camel toes are for public view(talk about spoilers), got upset when I talked about the episode with Donna Douglas who was having surgery to fix her looks, the girl screamed spoilers, spoilers.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

Studies actually show people enjoy things more when they know the ending. It helps them enjoy the movie in the moment rather than constantly trying to determine the outcome only to be disappointed by it not meeting their expectations.

[Wojo 2,453]

Knowing that Harrison is Khan couldn't keep nerd tears from building in my eyes when he declared his name to Kirk in the cell. However, knowing Kirk cheats death with help from a revived Tribble robbed his death scene of every drop of emotional gravitas, for me.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

Which still saved you from the utter "oh come on" feeling and eventual rampage if you were actually surprised by it. So you still enjoyed it more because you knew you would be cheated.

Wait...you saw the movie?

[Jay 37,369]

From this very thread:

All right, at my gf's insistence, I'm 40 minutes shy of seeing this on the big screen. The things I do for love.

[Delorean90 42]

Joey, I don't understand how you can ever know that. What if someone wasn't born yet or old enough to appreciate the show? What if they've been in a coma and finally came out of it? What if somebody is just damned busy and hasn't been able to get to it yet?

Blume, I've heard of that, but I think it disregards the possibility of different levels of appreciation or types of experience. I think that can also depend on how much someone values the element of surprise. Wasn't that study also conducted explicitly on mysteries? If something is good, it will be worth revisiting to savor after the initial spoiler-free experience. If it is good, it should still be an enjoyable experience on its own merits, even if you know how it ends. But I, for one, would like to have a shot at both ways. I think you do lose something in knowing beforehand. I don't even like for people to tell me about little gags just because I want to experience it fresh for myself. I think it's presumptuous and bad form to make that call for other people.

EDIT: Do we really want to be "saved" from our own initial, personal reactions to something? Get it through a filter of pre-thought and examination? I don't.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Knowing that Harrison is Khan couldn't keep nerd tears from building in my eyes when he declared his name to Kirk in the cell. However, knowing Kirk cheats death with help from a revived Tribble robbed his death scene of every drop of emotional gravitas, for me.

How did you like the film overall?

I had no emotion when Harrison announce he was Khan as there was none to be had. Kirk didn't know what that meant. Neither did Spock, but I did have a lump in my throat when he died. I expected not too but it was so well acted that I was touched. for all my dislikes about the rebooting of Star Trek, the core casting was superb and remains so.

[Pieter Boelen 740]

(I'm overwhelmingly tempted to use this quote as my signature

Do so and put it in [ SPOILER ] tags.

[Wojo 2,453]

I was going to see it anyways. I just wanted to see if I could build up enough disgust for it beforehand to continue to hate it. I haven't been near a keyboard long enough to formulate my thoughts and explain what I liked.

[gkgyver 1,645]

If the next film is the last with this crew, I think it would have been a way better idea to make STID about something else, and close the "trilogy" with the story of this film, with Kirk's proper death at the end, and not some mumbo jumbo about Khan's blood bringing him back to life. And then start a reboot of Star Trek Next Generation. And if it's just for bringing back the bloody Goldsmith theme.

[Uni 306]

Personally speaking, I didn't find any gaping plot holes in STID—or at least they didn't bother me enough to notice. The movie was sufficiently entertaining for me to suspend my disbelief above those gaps. I may also be allowing the "alternate reality" premise to gloss over most of these issues (perhaps more than I should). On the other hand, I've been compulsively trained as a Nitpicker to the point where I can't overlook some of the missed connections and wonky premises that cropped up along the way.

Here's a couple of my biggest ones . . . which, interestingly enough, provide a contrast in perspective. Some folks have expressed disappointment that the entire story took place in (what appeared to be, anyway) only a day or two. I don't see why that's a problem myself; some movies portray the events of only a few hours, and 24 certainly got plenty of mileage out of the action possible in a single day. My issue isn't with time elapsed—it's with what elapsed during that time.

To set the stage: no one in either movie ever attaches a value to the word "warp." They never specify which warp, whether it's Warp one, three, five, whatever. Since we've returned to the earliest incarnation of the Trek universe, maybe we can just assume that "warp" is a standard, fixed, super-light speed that's probably nowhere as fast as later, upgraded vessels can move (as demonstrated by the Dreadnought-class ship in this very movie). So for the sake of this nitpick, let's just say that "warp" in Abrams' world is somewhere around Warp 2—significantly faster than light, but not exponentially so.

With that in mind:

- Forget what I said in my calculations above. The Enterprise must be capable of something closer to Warp 9.9998, since it takes only minutes for them to go from Earth to Klingon space. Even in the NextGen timeframe that's usually a trip of a few days. While the jaunt to Kronos may have taken longer (we could assume some passage of time between scene cuts), on the way home there's no question about it: the Enterprise goes to warp, Marcus catches up inside of 30 seconds later, fires on them, and brings them out of warp less than a minute later . . . right on Earth's doorstep. How is this possible?

- While we're on that, who the hell's drivin' this thing, anyway? Neither Sulu nor the navigator beside him seem to have much of an idea when to stop their starship. They relied entirely on unfortunate circumstances to come out of warp on both occasions. The first time the warp core malfunctioned, halting them at the edge of Klingon space (which is where they were supposed to be, right?). Given that it only takes a minute or two to reach Klingon space, if they had stopped even a few seconds later they'd have been halfway to the Neutral Zone. Shouldn't they have stopped there anyway? It's the same way the second time. Marcus blasts them to an early stop--right next to the moon. Just think: if he hadn't, they would've started their five-year mission a year ahead of schedule.

- And while we're on that . . . Klingon space isn't very big, is it? The Enterprise floats to an unpleasant stop within sight of Kronos. That sightline puts it well inside the solar system—well within the next planet's orbit, in fact. Yet they're still supposedly on the edge of Klingon space. Not much of an "empire" yet, I suppose.

I'm on a roll. Can't resist one more:

- As the Enterprise is falling helplessly from space, Sulu announces that if they don't get shields operating soon they'll be incinerated on re-entry. Very true. So Kirk Riverdances on the warp core for a minute, eventually aligning the two thingies and restoring power. Sulu fires thrusters just as the ship disappears into the cloud layer. It emerges (in very cool fashion, I might add) a moment later, and the news comes that both power and shields have been restored. Except . . . those clouds would lie well below the ozone layer. The Enterprise would've been cinders by then.

- Uni

[Jay 37,369]

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.

It really comes down to Abrams and crew being more interested in cool looking shots and quickly-moving stories than hard science.

[Uni 306]

my comments about lost were not meant to spoil anything because at this point I thought enough time had passed.

Again, there's no statute of limitations (or there shouldn't be). Think about it: this is a time when people have access to whole series of television shows on DVD and Hulu, stuff they've never had the chance to see before. And there are always people who haven't seen even the most popular movies who may wish to do so at some point. In most cases they have an opportunity to see it fresh, without knowing what's going to happen. There's always going to be some risk of having things spoiled--especially if they spend any time on the internet. But thoughtfulness and common courtesy can go a long way toward preventing that kind of thing.

In my mind, it doesn't matter if it's a movie that came out last weekend or a story that's a century old. I respect peoples' right to take it in the way the author/director/screenwriter originally designed to have it taken in.

Studies actually show people enjoy things more when they know the ending. It helps them enjoy the movie in the moment rather than constantly trying to determine the outcome only to be disappointed by it not meeting their expectations.

We're not talking about studies. We're talking about people. I don't care what some poll says about anything. I want to be surprised. I can live with a disappointing ending, so long as I get to experience it the way it was meant to be experienced.

Harry Potter 6 was my least-favorite book, in large part because I knew what was going to happen at the end. Far from making the enjoyment more enjoyable, it made it miserable.

It really comes down to Abrams and crew being more interested in cool looking shots and quickly-moving stories than hard science.

I thought the same thing once or twice during these scenes. They had to go to warp to escape the Dreadnought, and they had to get knocked out of warp near Earth in order for the climax to come together the way it did. So they had to sacrifice credibility a little for it. Can I complain? The movie was such a good time, I find I'm having a hard time bellyaching about it. . . .

- Uni

[Jay 37,369]

Yea, I think I accidentally had the end of HP6 spoiled for me as well before I read it. But I think I tried to hope that what I had read was wrong while I was reading it, like it was a fake rumor, so it didn't ruin my enjoyment of the book

And yes, you could argue that engaging stories and cool special effects get butts into seats more than hard science ever will, but there have been 50 years of engaging Star Trek stories that also adhere to correct science, the screenwriters just chose not to go that route that time...

[Brónach 1,302]

And yes, you could argue that engaging stories and cool special effects get butts into seats more than hard science ever will, but there have been 50 years of engaging Star Trek stories that also adhere to correct science, the screenwriters just chose not to go that route that time...

It's Star Trek. I'd never go into Star Trek looking for cool hard science. It has a Spock with pointy ears and a spaceship organized like a boat. Its universe is determined from the shooting constraints of a 60's space opera TV show.

[Wojo 2,453]

Correct science? With transporters, wonky gravity, no ill effects from space travel, total disregard for Einstein's laws, warp drive, universal translators, the Enterprise always being the only ship nearby, dates and numbers of decks being confused, and forgetting how they solved the last time they had the same problem happen... You're worried about correct science?

[Uni 306]

Which brings up an interesting point, particularly in the sphere of these last two movies: Is it worth suspending the science if it means upping the adrenaline and watchability? If it brings more people into the Star Trek fold? Frankly, I'll take the Abrams Treks over something like The Final Frontier or Nemesis any day of the week. Does that make me an apostate. . . ? *GASP*

Correct science? With transporters, wonky gravity, no ill effects from space travel, total disregard for Einstein's laws, warp drive, universal translators, the Enterprise always being the only ship nearby, dates and numbers of decks being confused, and forgetting how they solved the last time they had the same problem happen... You're worried about correct science?

Heh . . . well, I suppose there's that, too. . . .

- Uni

[Jay 37,369]

I was just trying to say they could have made these two movies roughly the same while still showing that it takes days to get from Earth to Vulcan/Kronos, but they chose not to

[Brónach 1,302]

In J.J. Abrams' Star Trek everything goes LIGHTNING FAST AND HYPERCHARGED!!!!!!!!!!!

[Wojo 2,453]

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.

[Jay 37,369]

Yup exactly - that is the biggest plot hole I have a problem with

What's the point of a 5 year mission in a universe with this version of transporter technology? You can just transport to a planet, check it out, transport back home for dinner.

They ruined everything with this silly trans-warp stuff.

[Delorean90 42]

"Faster, more intense."

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

To be fair, most of the biggest detrimental effects of space travel on humans are from 0-g-forces (not to be confused with gravity, astronauts experience the same gravity we experience on Earth, just not the same acceleration).

Star Trek ships have g-forces to keep people walking.

But that brings up another hole, most planets have different gravitational forces. Are the poor alien crewmembers slowly being obliterated by being in a 1-g environment?

[Trent B 337]

Riker: "Isn't it odd that in each attack the Enterprise has always been the only ship in range?" - TNG Episode "Descent".

They did over use that the Enterprise was always the only ship in range..

[Brónach 1,302]

To be fair, most of the biggest detrimental effects of space travel on humans are from 0-g-forces (not to be confused with gravity, astronauts experience the same gravity we experience on Earth, just not the same acceleration).

There isn't really 0g, it's called free fall.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

my comments about lost were not meant to spoil anything because at this point I thought enough time had passed.

Again, there's no statute of limitations (or there shouldn't be). Think about it: this is a time when people have access to whole series of television shows on DVD and Hulu, stuff they've never had the chance to see before. And there are always people who haven't seen even the most popular movies who may wish to do so at some point. In most cases they have an opportunity to see it fresh, without knowing what's going to happen. There's always going to be some risk of having things spoiled--especially if they spend any time on the internet. But thoughtfulness and common courtesy can go a long way toward preventing that kind of thing.

In my mind, it doesn't matter if it's a movie that came out last weekend or a story that's a century old. I respect peoples' right to take it in the way the author/director/screenwriter originally designed to have it taken in.

- Uni

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.

Yup exactly - that is the biggest plot hole I have a problem with

What's the point of a 5 year mission in a universe with this version of transporter technology? You can just transport to a planet, check it out, transport back home for dinner.

They ruined everything with this silly trans-warp stuff.

trans warp has been around since Search for Spock, only the Borg ever got it right.

[Ollie 1,059]

One thing is certain, contemporary music, ie the nightclub scene, still sucks in the 23rd century.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

One thing is certain, contemporary music, ie the nightclub scene, still sucks in the 23rd century.

LOL. we thought it was Lady Gag.

[Wojo 2,453]

@ Joey: LOL. I see what you did there.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

To be fair, most of the biggest detrimental effects of space travel on humans are from 0-g-forces (not to be confused with gravity, astronauts experience the same gravity we experience on Earth, just not the same acceleration).

There isn't really 0g, it's called free fall.

A g is a measure of acceleration. 0 g is 0 acceleration.

[Brónach 1,302]

To be fair, most of the biggest detrimental effects of space travel on humans are from 0-g-forces (not to be confused with gravity, astronauts experience the same gravity we experience on Earth, just not the same acceleration).

There isn't really 0g, it's called free fall.

A g is a measure of acceleration. 0 g is 0 acceleration.

My brain just reads "zero gravity" and goes "oh, not this again..."

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

I posted this in the box office thread...

But yeah...the Chinese National Space Administration has a familiar emblem:

[Henry B 50]

So, early in the film, Scotty says to Kirk, "I thought we were explorers," and at the end of the film Kirk speaks about how we shouldn't seek vengeance and forget our true purpose. Was this sort of a wink-wink to people who bemoan how action oriented Star Trek has become? Somehow I don't think the next movie will be about exploration, though. I really don't know what to think about this self-referential fan-service of a film. Is fan-service bad? Maybe not... I certainly enjoyed all the nods. Eh, I'll try to see it again. Also, in 2D. Abrams' shaky cam cinematography and frenetic editing really doesn't lend itself to the 3D experience.

[Trent B 337]

At that time in the film Kirk basically forgot what he was (an explorer) since he was so hell bent on avenging Pike's death he didn't give a damn. People make mistakes and Kirk made one then and realized it later.

Ya the way how a lot of scenes were shot with the shaky cam were annoying, as were the lens flares.

[Wojo 2,453]

I didn't even think about the lens flares until Kirk asked Khan to join him.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

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.