STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Rot your brains, then rot our boards

Moderators: SecondTalon, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
charliepanayi
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:26 pm UTC
Location: London, UK

STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby charliepanayi » Thu May 09, 2013 7:16 pm UTC

I know there's one down the page for the last film but thought there should be a new thread for this one. It's out in the UK today, so discuss away, and stuff. I'm hoping to see it this weekend.
"Excuse me Miss, do you like pineapple?"

"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying"

maybeagnostic
Posts: 622
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:34 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek into Darkness

Postby maybeagnostic » Fri May 10, 2013 12:24 pm UTC

So I saw it last night and thought it was pretty similar to the first one- had fun parts, had boring parts, lots of scenes were almost obscured by lens flare. Pretty bland and forgettable over all.

Major spoilers for people familiar with the old movies, mostly meaningless stuff for people who haven't:
Spoiler:
So the bad guy was Khan, Spock and Kirk had their roles in the reactor reversed and they didn't wait for the next movie to revive him... except I haven't actually watched the old movie, I just know those things existed in them and Into Darkness didn't make me care about these things in the slightest.

At the end of the movie I still couldn't understand what Khan's deal was supposed to be. Who made him? Who tried to destroy him? Is he a genetically modified human and if so where was he hiding for 200 years? For that matter are all the chicks with tails and gills, tiny reptile bipeds and so on aliens? How come they live on Earth if humans have only made contact with a few alien races so far and they don't belong to them? Were the klingons just a setup for the next movie or an out of context scene from some old Star Trek?


Yeah, so the story wasn't engaging and required knowledge of the old Star Trek movies to really understand*. The action scenes were adequate but I wouldn't watch the movie for them. Same goes for the special effects. The humor and character interactions are just as fun as last time but can't carry the movie on their own.

* At least I assume having watched the original movies makes the plot make more sense. The other option is that there were just huge plot holes that remained unaddressed which is also possible.
T: ... through an emergency induction port.
S: That's a straw, Tali.
T: Emerrrgency induction port.

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3649
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: Star Trek into Darkness

Postby eSOANEM » Sat May 11, 2013 10:02 am UTC

I think quite a lot of the problems were explained by old trek things.

Spoiler:
Khan was a genetically engineered "augment". He was prominent in the eugenics wars of the late 20th century (seeing as that date's now passed, I imagine this is why they glossed over that). He escaped aboard a sleeper ship.

The two timelines diverge at this point. In the original timeline, he was discovered by the enterprise during the 5 year mission and marooned on ceti alpha V. Later, he hijacks another ship, is defeated in the mutara nebula before activating the genesis device which destroys him but also works as the McGuffin to bring Spock back to life after he dies in the reactor.

In the alternate timeline, it seems that Admiral Marcus picked Khan up a good deal sooner and used him to design more powerful weapons.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

maybeagnostic
Posts: 622
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:34 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek into Darkness

Postby maybeagnostic » Sat May 11, 2013 10:45 am UTC

Spoiler:
But why can he make super advanced spaceships by himself if he hasn't even seen a laptop? It would be like trying to use a Victorian era engineer's knowledge of steam engines to develop fusion-powered fighter jets.

Also, is it ever explained why humanity abandoned the technology for making humans immune to disease, physical trauma, and radiation? The movie made it seem like Khan's blood had no negative side effects at all.

To be clear, none of these things particularly bothered me while watching the movie, I just feel they could have made for a far more interesting story. As is the movie seems too preoccupied with mimicking scenes from its predecessors to really explore any ideas of its own.
T: ... through an emergency induction port.
S: That's a straw, Tali.
T: Emerrrgency induction port.

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3649
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: Star Trek into Darkness

Postby eSOANEM » Sat May 11, 2013 11:09 am UTC

Spoiler:
It's not using Khan's knowledge, it's using his intelligence. The idea is that he could quickly pick up all the stuff starfleet knew about starship design and then improve on it.

Research into augments was abandoned when they all turned out a bit crazy. I think at this stage though, in this new timeline, I think it'd be likely the federation would start investigating the possibility of using augment blood.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

User avatar
keozen
The Bearded FaiD Batman
Posts: 1497
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 6:31 am UTC
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Contact:

Re: Star Trek into Darkness

Postby keozen » Sat May 11, 2013 9:01 pm UTC

As long as you basically finally accept that New Trek is a different animal from old Trek, with it's own rules and levels of explanation and depth then it's a very good film. I can see how a lot of uber neckbeards are going to hate it though.
Image

User avatar
Mat
Posts: 414
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:19 pm UTC
Location: London

Re: Star Trek into Darkness

Postby Mat » Sun May 12, 2013 10:07 am UTC

By "different levels of explanation and depth" do you mean none?

I'm not a huge fan of the old movies but I don't think the new ones stand up that well even on their own. I don't care so much about changing the rules, it's their black and white morality, shallow villains, and contrived plots that ruin them for me.

The things I hate about this one basically amount to a plot summary.
Spoiler:
Everything after Khan bombs section 31 made no sense...

Marcus reinstates Kirk as captain and allows him to go after Khan. He was demoted for not following orders, so obviously he is the one to carry out your insane mission that cannot deviate from the plan in any way. Sure, ok.

Then all of the starfleet captains assemble in a poorly defended room so they can be killed by Khan, WTF. Kirk is supposed to be brilliant for realising the stupidity of the protocol, but nobody has thought about this *before* the attack?? They can't telecommute for this? And Starfleet just allows vehicles to fly up to their HQ without any interference? Blah.

So Marcus sends the enterprise to kill Khan, with the friggin torpedos Khan wants.
Apparently he has 4 goals here:
  • Kill Khan, the biggest threat to section 31
  • Using the very weapons he wants to recover (for maximum irony?)
  • Start the war he justified with 1 line of dialog
  • Destroy the enterprise so nobody finds out

Meanwhile Khan's plan is to dick around on Kronos and wait for the idiots to come to him.

Marcus's daughter sneaks aboard and Spock doesn't think this is a big deal. Turns out he's right as she hardly does anything in the whole movie.

Blah blah action blah. Khan is dumb and lets Spock beam torpedoes onto his ship and detonate them. Kirk has Wrath of Khan moment but there is no danger because magic blood. Angry Spock fight Khan blah blah blah end.

Then we get a lecture on how Starfleet is all about exploration. Sure would be nice to see a movie about that.

Also, cell phones.

OP Tipping
Posts: 220
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 6:23 am UTC

Re: Star Trek into Darkness

Postby OP Tipping » Sun May 12, 2013 10:19 am UTC

I enjoyed it. Lots of explosions and in-jokes. Definitely in the "fun summer blockbuster" category rather than the "classic for the ages" category.

Some spoilers ahead:
Spoiler:
I liked how the villain bought an insider by curing the insider's little daughter... Like in Iron Man.

And how the first attack was on London rather than the US just for something different... Like in GI Joe 2.

And how the bad guy sounded posh British and they kept him on board the ship in a glass cage and he had let himself be captured because it was all part of his plans... Like in The Avengers.

Meanwhile the Boss Lady says it was the same plot as Skyfall, which is an interesting take.

Unfortunately for me the major surprise, that the villain was K, had already been revealed by IMDB. (yells at sky) IIIIIIMMMMMDDDDDDbbbbbb!

Still, as I say, enjoyed it. Jim dies, Spock cries, what more do you want?

User avatar
charliepanayi
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:26 pm UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: Star Trek into Darkness

Postby charliepanayi » Sun May 12, 2013 12:17 pm UTC

Mat wrote:By "different levels of explanation and depth" do you mean none?

I'm not a huge fan of the old movies but I don't think the new ones stand up that well even on their own. I don't care so much about changing the rules, it's their black and white morality, shallow villains, and contrived plots that ruin them for me.

The things I hate about this one basically amount to a plot summary.
Spoiler:
Everything after Khan bombs section 31 made no sense...

Marcus reinstates Kirk as captain and allows him to go after Khan. He was demoted for not following orders, so obviously he is the one to carry out your insane mission that cannot deviate from the plan in any way. Sure, ok.

Then all of the starfleet captains assemble in a poorly defended room so they can be killed by Khan, WTF. Kirk is supposed to be brilliant for realising the stupidity of the protocol, but nobody has thought about this *before* the attack?? They can't telecommute for this? And Starfleet just allows vehicles to fly up to their HQ without any interference? Blah.

So Marcus sends the enterprise to kill Khan, with the friggin torpedos Khan wants.
Apparently he has 4 goals here:
  • Kill Khan, the biggest threat to section 31
  • Using the very weapons he wants to recover (for maximum irony?)
  • Start the war he justified with 1 line of dialog
  • Destroy the enterprise so nobody finds out

Meanwhile Khan's plan is to dick around on Kronos and wait for the idiots to come to him.

Marcus's daughter sneaks aboard and Spock doesn't think this is a big deal. Turns out he's right as she hardly does anything in the whole movie.

Blah blah action blah. Khan is dumb and lets Spock beam torpedoes onto his ship and detonate them. Kirk has Wrath of Khan moment but there is no danger because magic blood. Angry Spock fight Khan blah blah blah end.

Then we get a lecture on how Starfleet is all about exploration. Sure would be nice to see a movie about that.

Also, cell phones.


I don't think this film had a shallow villain or black and white morality at all. One of the central points of it is how black and white morality is wrong.

And I'm with OP Tipping. It wasn't Avengers-good, but it was still very enjoyable. Plus, redshirt jokes.
"Excuse me Miss, do you like pineapple?"

"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying"

OP Tipping
Posts: 220
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 6:23 am UTC

Re: Star Trek into Darkness

Postby OP Tipping » Sun May 12, 2013 12:42 pm UTC

charliepanayi : glad to hear you contrast it with Avengers. There are a lot of people who regard The Avengers as just another big budget hero movie, whereas to me it was a work of great subtlety and carefully crafted dialogue.

maybeagnostic
Posts: 622
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:34 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek into Darkness

Postby maybeagnostic » Sun May 12, 2013 4:04 pm UTC

charliepanayi wrote:I don't think this film had a shallow villain or black and white morality at all. One of the central points of it is how black and white morality is wrong.

Spoiler:
Really? The general who wanted to start a very destructive war for no good reason wasn't a shallow villain? You think the movie left any doubt about whether every single decision Kirk made was the 'right' one?

For a moment it seemed they could portray Khan as being backed into a corner and simply defending himself... except we are straight up told that he is the most devious and dangerous villain the Alliance will know in this age. And then he starts acting like a murderous psychopath. And then he is put in suspended animation for a potentially unlimited amount of time without a trial which the audience is meant to see as a good and proper ending.
T: ... through an emergency induction port.
S: That's a straw, Tali.
T: Emerrrgency induction port.

User avatar
charliepanayi
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:26 pm UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: Star Trek into Darkness

Postby charliepanayi » Sun May 12, 2013 6:26 pm UTC

Spoiler:
Is it implied that there was no trial for Khan?
"Excuse me Miss, do you like pineapple?"

"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying"

User avatar
bigglesworth
I feel like Biggles should have a title
Posts: 7461
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:29 pm UTC
Location: Airstrip One

Re: Star Trek into Darkness

Postby bigglesworth » Sun May 12, 2013 9:30 pm UTC

Spoiler:
I got the impression that Marcus didn't want to start a war, but to be ready for one. And to make sure Khan didn't get to enact his revenge, possibly by helping the Klingons.
And Khan had been an agent of Marcus, he'd have Fleet access to vehicles and locations.

I'll admit that having Kirk on the mission didn't make that much sense.
Generation Y. I don't remember the First Gulf War, but do remember floppy disks.

OP Tipping
Posts: 220
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 6:23 am UTC

Re: Star Trek into Darkness

Postby OP Tipping » Sun May 12, 2013 10:20 pm UTC

I'll admit that having Kirk on the mission didn't make that much sense.


My impression was that it was kind of an off-the-books, irregular mission (
Spoiler:
involving, as it did, an execution without trial in Klingon space)
that someone who went strictly by the books would not be willing to carry out. If you gave it to someone like Spocky-two-shoes for instance, he'd just report it to someone.

User avatar
keozen
The Bearded FaiD Batman
Posts: 1497
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 6:31 am UTC
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Contact:

Re: Star Trek into Darkness

Postby keozen » Mon May 13, 2013 7:25 am UTC

OP Tipping wrote:
I'll admit that having Kirk on the mission didn't make that much sense.


My impression was that it was kind of an off-the-books, irregular mission (
Spoiler:
involving, as it did, an execution without trial in Klingon space)
that someone who went strictly by the books would not be willing to carry out. If you gave it to someone like Spocky-two-shoes for instance, he'd just report it to someone.


I also took it that Marcus saw it as a "Convenient way to get rid of Kirk" as he knew he was sending the Enterprise to it's destruction. Yeah he may not have been sure that Kirk would have fired off the missiles, killing THAT DUDE. But he was damn confident that if he hadn't THAT DUDE would have killed them all and the OTHER DUDES would more than likely have found that they were in their space and same result just with some Kahn cleanup to do.
Last edited by Felstaff on Tue May 14, 2013 11:42 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Spoiler that shit yo.
Image

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Star Trek into Darkness

Postby Izawwlgood » Sat May 18, 2013 5:37 pm UTC

Entertaining, ultimately kind of meh.
Spoiler:
"We're going to start a war with these people! Nevermind, they're just a minor plot point and you won't be hearing from them again!" "Remember that sweet sky diving scene from the last movie? Lets do it again, but in space!" "Oh crap, home boy is totally dead... JUUUUUUUUUUUUST KIDDING!"


Maybe it was just the pacing, but I found it felt kind of uninspiring, just moving from small catastrophe to another. Ultimately, Kirk and crew had a really long day.

That said; space. All is forgiven.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Star Trek into Darkness

Postby Vaniver » Mon May 20, 2013 5:36 am UTC

I liked it. Yes, there were several plot holes, and gravity doesn't work like that, but it's Star Trek.

Spoiler:
maybeagnostic wrote:Also, is it ever explained why humanity abandoned the technology for making humans immune to disease, physical trauma, and radiation? The movie made it seem like Khan's blood had no negative side effects at all.
The impression I get is this is just raw human envy. We can't let them be better at everything.

It took them like fifteen minutes to realize that Khan's blood could save Kirk. I realized they could use it for that immediately after I saw the radiation door, which made that sequence much less moving. Of course they'll be able to resurrect him.

Speaking of Khan's blood, why not use the blood from one of the other Augments? If it takes time to freshen them up (speaking of blood, you know how cryonics works? You have to replace the blood with cryoprotectant liquid), you've got time- Kirk's in cryo himself.

(Also, I was more distraught at the destruction of skyscrapers in Future San Francisco than Kirk's sacrifice. Not sure that was the intended effect. :P


(As the movie ended, someone behind me asked who played THAT DUDE, and the guy sitting next to him said "oh, he plays Sherlock, he's The Internet's Boyfriend," which made me laugh more than it should have.)
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Star Trek into Darkness

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon May 20, 2013 5:57 am UTC

Spoiler:
Didn't they say Khan was ~300 years old? Wasn't stardate 2270something? Go 70's us!
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
bigglesworth
I feel like Biggles should have a title
Posts: 7461
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:29 pm UTC
Location: Airstrip One

Re: Star Trek into Darkness

Postby bigglesworth » Mon May 20, 2013 5:27 pm UTC

Spoiler:
The Eugenics wars were presumably WW2 then :P
Generation Y. I don't remember the First Gulf War, but do remember floppy disks.

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1244
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek into Darkness

Postby JudeMorrigan » Mon May 20, 2013 6:36 pm UTC

bigglesworth wrote:
Spoiler:
The Eugenics wars were presumably WW2 then :P

Spoiler:
The Eugenics Wars canonically occured in the 1990s. I believe the "300 years" line was actually an attempt to stay consistent with the original timeline even though we've passed that point ourselves.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Star Trek into Darkness

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon May 20, 2013 6:40 pm UTC

Actually, upon learning that, it means Gene Roddenberry added that as a future from the time of the shows release, which honestly, is kind of cool. That complaint redacted!
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3354
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek into Darkness

Postby rmsgrey » Mon May 20, 2013 11:19 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:I liked it. Yes, there were several plot holes, and gravity doesn't work like that, but it's Star Trek.


Sounds like it resembles the first Abrams Trek - great characters; no science.

maybeagnostic
Posts: 622
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:34 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek into Darkness

Postby maybeagnostic » Tue May 21, 2013 9:38 am UTC

rmsgrey wrote:great characters; no science.

I wouldn't call the characters great. The actors do their best but there is no growth, very little consistency between scenes, and most dialogue is tongue-in-cheek. The only dramatic scene was laughable. It was a competently executed summer action movie with space elements.

Apparently the movie is doing poorly in the box office. That made me happy.
T: ... through an emergency induction port.
S: That's a straw, Tali.
T: Emerrrgency induction port.

Chen
Posts: 5434
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Star Trek into Darkness

Postby Chen » Tue May 21, 2013 12:10 pm UTC

maybeagnostic wrote:Apparently the movie is doing poorly in the box office. That made me happy.


It made 83 million on its opening weekend. While not Avenger's level high, still seems pretty good. It beat the original's opening weekend by about 8 million.

User avatar
charliepanayi
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:26 pm UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: Star Trek into Darkness

Postby charliepanayi » Tue May 21, 2013 12:51 pm UTC

maybeagnostic wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:great characters; no science.

I wouldn't call the characters great. The actors do their best but there is no growth, very little consistency between scenes, and most dialogue is tongue-in-cheek. The only dramatic scene was laughable. It was a competently executed summer action movie with space elements.

Apparently the movie is doing poorly in the box office. That made me happy.


Sorry to rain on your parade, but while it's not pulling in Iron Man 3-sized numbers, it's not doing badly at all. And I loved the tongue-in-cheek dialogue, I laughed a lot watching it.
"Excuse me Miss, do you like pineapple?"

"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying"

User avatar
moody7277
Posts: 558
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 7:06 pm UTC
Location: Extreme south Texas

Re: Star Trek into Darkness

Postby moody7277 » Wed May 22, 2013 3:26 pm UTC

Interesting possible easter egg

Spoiler:
When Kirk and Marcus are talking about the Klingons, they pan past a series of ship models. The last one on the left looks rather like the Dreadnought vessel Marcus is piloting towards the end of the film.
The story of my life in xkcdmafia:

Tigerlion wrote:Well, I imagine as the game progresses, various people will be getting moody.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Star Trek into Darkness

Postby Vaniver » Wed May 22, 2013 8:09 pm UTC

moody7277 wrote:Interesting possible easter egg
What makes that an Easter Egg? It looks like normal foreshadowing to me.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5750
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Star Trek into Darkness

Postby Angua » Wed May 22, 2013 11:24 pm UTC

Spoiler:
How the hell did they end up falling into Earth at the end. They were really far away, then suddenly they are crashing into Earth (which apparently has no defences and no way to help the Enterprise).
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

Ray Kremer
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2013 8:21 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek into Darkness

Postby Ray Kremer » Thu May 23, 2013 1:14 am UTC

Ugh. I have to vent about this somewhere and this is the only forum that I'm properly active on right now.

You know, the first movie annoyed me because of
Spoiler:
Blowing up Vulcan, blowing up original timeline Romulus, it takes Nimoy to get the crew together, and blatant abuse of transporter technology.

(Seriously, TNG specifically addressed transport at warp and extra-long-range transport, and there's no way in hell under established trek technobabble to combine the two.)

Mostly I just wish they could've done a straight reboot without relying on the time travel and Old Spock crap.

Into Darkness doubles down on all of that.
Spoiler:
Now it's not just transport from a planet to a ship at warp, it's transport from Earth to the Klingon homeworld. So, new trek has stargate tech now, but without even needing an actual gate? WTF? For reals, trek transporters cannot. do. that.

Also, cold fusion is achieving a fusion reaction without star-core temperature/pressure conditions, it is not an endothermic bomb. Dammit.

Oh, and we'll just rip off Wrath of Khan while we're at it. First lines, then entire scenes. And just to make sure you know we're recycling a villain from the original series instead of coming up with our own ideas, we'll call up Nimoy again!

They're so close, they could do amazing things if they just relied on the premise and the characters without holding on to things the original cast did.

I fully expect the next sequel to be
Spoiler:
Enterprise discovers a big cylindrical probe that messes up the ship systems. Put in a call to Nimoy, find out they have to play whale song at it.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Star Trek into Darkness

Postby Vaniver » Thu May 23, 2013 3:09 am UTC

So, something I just realized:

Spoiler:
Is it just me, or are captains the new redshirts?
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Vieto
Posts: 1558
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2008 10:44 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Star Trek into Darkness

Postby Vieto » Thu May 23, 2013 5:05 am UTC

I'm more concerned about
Spoiler:
The fact that, since it is now possible to track and shoot down ships in warp (FTL tracking), the Picard Maneuver has effectively become obsolete.
a.k.a. Cazador

Chen
Posts: 5434
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Star Trek into Darkness

Postby Chen » Thu May 23, 2013 12:03 pm UTC

Vieto wrote:I'm more concerned about
Spoiler:
The fact that, since it is now possible to track and shoot down ships in warp (FTL tracking), the Picard Maneuver has effectively become obsolete.


I'm pretty sure they could always shoot at things at warp. I definitely remember them launching torpedoes at a Borg cube while at high warp anyways. I'm pretty sure there were some Enterprise episodes where they were talking about how it should be possible but their old ship would blow up the necelles if they tried. Since in TNG they seem able to do it if they need to in certain episodes I don't see what the issue is.

Also recall that the Picard maneuver works because the data from both instances of the ship is arriving at the same time causing confusion. In theory it should be so brief that its imperceptible to the humans on board but I guess they kinda hand wave that away. They seem pretty able to track things that are moving consistently at warp throughout the series so provided you were in the same warp field as the other ship, I don't see a problem using Phasers. Torpedoes could be used even not in the same warp field presuming they can somehow leech a warp field off the firing ship and maintain it for a short while.

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3649
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: Star Trek into Darkness

Postby eSOANEM » Fri May 24, 2013 9:45 am UTC

The picard manoeuvre's only relevant for an enemy which cannot track at warp anyway even in prime timeline TNG. There's no reason to suspect the ferengi develop warp tracking any sooner in the alternate timeline.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

rmsgrey
Posts: 3354
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek into Darkness

Postby rmsgrey » Fri May 24, 2013 12:40 pm UTC

eSOANEM wrote:The picard manoeuvre's only relevant for an enemy which cannot track at warp anyway even in prime timeline TNG. There's no reason to suspect the ferengi develop warp tracking any sooner in the alternate timeline.

There's also a difference between being able to track an object moving at warp for a period of time, and picking up the jump to warp, switching to warp tracking, picking up the drop to sublight and switching back to sublight tracking on the new target position in a fraction of a second.

You have to be setup to track objects transitioning in and out of warp to be able to avoid the Picard manoeuvre.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby Vaniver » Sun May 26, 2013 1:08 am UTC

So, I came across a review that has me seriously reconsidering my opinion.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
charliepanayi
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:26 pm UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby charliepanayi » Sun May 26, 2013 9:13 am UTC

Every time I see anyone using the word 'betrayal' when talking about this film or the last one I do just think 'get over yourself'.

Also this idea that the new films have had fans turning away in droves rather ignores the low ratings that did in Enterprise, and the terrible box office of Star Trek: Nemesis.
"Excuse me Miss, do you like pineapple?"

"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying"

User avatar
UniqueScreenname
Something something Purple. Stop asking.
Posts: 1430
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 8:11 pm UTC
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby UniqueScreenname » Sun May 26, 2013 12:22 pm UTC

As someone who is mostly unfamiliar with the original series, I really enjoyed it. With these types of movies, I tend to suspend my understanding of science in favor of "future science" that we don't understand yet, even if it really isn't possible.

Also, THAT DUDE is really sexy. Makes me like Sherlock a little more.
PolakoVoador wrote:Pizza is never a question, pizza is always the answer.
poxic wrote:When we're stuck, flailing, and afraid, that's usually when we're running into the limitations of our old ways of doing things. Something new is being born. Stick around and find out what it is.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby Izawwlgood » Sun May 26, 2013 3:31 pm UTC

charliepanayi wrote:Every time I see anyone using the word 'betrayal' when talking about this film or the last one I do just think 'get over yourself'.

Also this idea that the new films have had fans turning away in droves rather ignores the low ratings that did in Enterprise, and the terrible box office of Star Trek: Nemesis.
I'm fairly comfortable agreeing with you, but it's important to recognize that some people find other things than you do important. We may personally not find the let down of a Star Trek to be more than a bad film, but some people really like the series. Shrug. I feel funny saying that given another thread I was recently... debating in.

And yeah, the Star Trek movies have a long and rich history of sucking pretty hard. That good films are an exception to this trend should scare any film makers off, but the spirit of the show seems to be largely ignored in those films that sucked, and adhered to in those that didn't (I'm looking at you Voyage Home!)

Vaniver wrote:[linked review]
I find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with this review.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

RogueCynic
Posts: 379
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 10:23 pm UTC

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby RogueCynic » Sun May 26, 2013 11:13 pm UTC

As to the Picard Manouevre, y=mx+b, even at warp speed. I've always wanted to say that. That felt good. As to shooting things at warp speed, refer to Mad Magazine's spoof of "Star Wars", particularly the opening panel.
I am Lord Titanius Englesmith, Fancyman of Cornwood.
See 1 Kings 7:23 for pi.
If you put a prune in a juicer, what would you get?

User avatar
keozen
The Bearded FaiD Batman
Posts: 1497
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 6:31 am UTC
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Contact:

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby keozen » Wed May 29, 2013 5:09 pm UTC

The bits of the Star Trek that people are complaining are missed out of the film, the more intelligent bits, the clever plots about ethics and morality...... they've pretty much always been missing from the films. Star Trek is not made for film, it doesn't work on film nearly as well as it does on TV. Star Trek on film gave us talking whales, the head of god past "the galactic core", an intelligent version of a dumb 80s probe come to destroy the world and turned the intelligent, thoughtful, tactful Picard into a phaser rifle toting action hero wannabe who doesn't seem to remember what the prime directive is one minute to the next.

This is just the new updated for current hollywood budgets version of Trek films. Hate it all you like but Trek won't be Trek again until it has a long running series. I personally quite enjoy the new films for their entertainment value.

Also, like it or not Trek was BLEEDING fans through many many open wounds by the end of Enterprise. Enterprise gained very few NEW fans and lost a lot of old ones early on who either never came back or only did just in time to see it cancelled. More than that, we've got to the point where the LOYAL fans that started the entire thing off back in the days of Kirk and the gang are all starting to get to the average human life expectancy age.

Star Trek 2009 made more at the box office than the previous 3 Trek films PUT TOGETHER & "Into Darkness" beat it at opening weekend.

Like it or not the new franchise is our best chance at a new series. I guarantee it won't happen until the films stop making that much money though.
Image


Return to “Movies and TV Shows”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests