Star Trek into Darkness - Synopsis

PST: discuss Star Trek without "versus" arguments.

Moderator: Vympel

User avatar
Vanas
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2005-03-12 05:31pm
Location: Surfing the Moho
Contact:

Re: Star Trek into Darkness - Synopsis

Post by Vanas »

Lilgreenman wrote:Welp, just got back from the movie and I was pleasantly surprised; apart from a few nitpicks...
Spoiler
Why did they cast a Brit as Carol Marcus?

Marcus says that some Starfleet officer confessed that Khanberbatch coerced him to blow up the London base; how would he have been able to confess after everything was blown up?

What's the deal with the robot bridge guy? How can you reconcile him with Soong being such a radical genius?

Why did they beam Spock down to chase Khan on foot at the end rather than just beaming him up when he landed, and why did Khan grab that longcoat?
To answer a couple of these from, you know, watching the movie: Spoiler
1. Mickey very obviously sent an E-mail to the admiral before he exploded.

2.They also very clearly said they were having problems picking Khan out of the gigantic crowd of people, which seems like a very sensible limitation for a transporter beyond 'handwave radiation'.
According to wikipedia, "the Mohorovičić discontinuity is the boundary between the Earth's crust and the mantle."
According to Starbound, it's a problem solvable with enough combat drugs to turn you into the Incredible Hulk.
User avatar
Nephtys
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6227
Joined: 2005-04-02 10:54pm
Location: South Cali... where life is cheap!

Re: Star Trek into Darkness - Synopsis

Post by Nephtys »

So I read through this thread after seeing the Movie today.

Gotta say. There's a lot of completely, unreasonable, irrational fan-reactions here. Like people flipping their shit at it not being 'canon enough' and other stuff, or the synopsis.

Sorry, but Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Holmes was fun, entertaining, full of silly little fanservice things, but accessible and coherent. It was a SPACE ADVENTURE FILM, not some dull rehash of tech manuals. It's full of Star Treky things, like 'violating our orders' adventure, every character doing something only they can do, and corrupt Starfleet admirals. It's a Star Trek movie, even moreso than the first one. If you just sit back and THINK on what each major story point is, it's thematically pretty damn close to say, The Undiscovered Country. Much moreso than The Wrath of Khan.
User avatar
Eternal_Freedom
Castellan
Posts: 10424
Joined: 2010-03-09 02:16pm
Location: CIC, Battlestar Temeraire

Re: Star Trek into Darkness - Synopsis

Post by Eternal_Freedom »

Lilgreenman wrote:Welp, just got back from the movie and I was pleasantly surprised; apart from a few nitpicks...
Spoiler
Why did they cast a Brit as Carol Marcus?

Marcus says that some Starfleet officer confessed that Khanberbatch coerced him to blow up the London base; how would he have been able to confess after everything was blown up?

What's the deal with the robot bridge guy? How can you reconcile him with Soong being such a radical genius?

Why did they beam Spock down to chase Khan on foot at the end rather than just beaming him up when he landed, and why did Khan grab that longcoat?
[/quote]
Spoiler
1. Perhaps becuase Alice Eve was the best actress who auditioned for the role?

3. I just figured the robot bridge guy was a cyborg due to some head injury he suffered. Or maybe his people are like the Binars. I certainly don't think he's a robot.
Baltar: "I don't want to miss a moment of the last Battlestar's destruction!"
Centurion: "Sir, I really think you should look at the other Battlestar."
Baltar: "What are you babbling about other...it's impossible!"
Centurion: "No. It is a Battlestar."

Corrax Entry 7:17: So you walk eternally through the shadow realms, standing against evil where all others falter. May your thirst for retribution never quench, may the blood on your sword never dry, and may we never need you again.
User avatar
Lilgreenman
Redshirt
Posts: 22
Joined: 2013-04-24 04:15pm
Location: Latitude 50 N, Longitude 40 W

Re: Star Trek into Darkness - Synopsis

Post by Lilgreenman »

Vanas wrote: To answer a couple of these from, you know, watching the movie: Spoiler
1. Mickey very obviously sent an E-mail to the admiral before he exploded.

2.They also very clearly said they were having problems picking Khan out of the gigantic crowd of people, which seems like a very sensible limitation for a transporter beyond 'handwave radiation'.
Ah, I didn't notice the first one; but as I recall, my second point still stands...
Spoiler
IIRC, the problem wasn't that they couldn't pick him out from the crowd, but that he was falling too fast (which is something they use much more than they should given how important it was in the first movie).

And another thing: It's called the 'USS Vengeance', but why? Vengeance against who? Marcus wants war with the Klingons, not revenge.
Again, this is pretty minor stuff, the plot and science stand up pretty well to both real life and Trek canon, other than "cold fusion" most decidedly not working that way.
"Thus I, Wall, hath my role discharged so,
And, being done, thus Wall away doth go."
User avatar
Gaidin
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2646
Joined: 2004-06-19 12:27am
Contact:

Re: Star Trek into Darkness - Synopsis

Post by Gaidin »

Lilgreenman wrote: Spoiler
IIRC, the problem wasn't that they couldn't pick him out from the crowd, but that he was falling too fast (which is something they use much more than they should given how important it was in the first movie).

And another thing: It's called the 'USS Vengeance', but why? Vengeance against who? Marcus wants war with the Klingons, not revenge.
Spoiler
Wasn't there a point in there about Marcus' program finally getting off the ground after Vulcan getting destroyed? That seems a good inspiration for the for the name Vengeance, at least thematically if we want to talk about Starfleet policy.
User avatar
Imperial Overlord
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11978
Joined: 2004-08-19 04:30am
Location: The Tower at Charm

Re: Star Trek into Darkness - Synopsis

Post by Imperial Overlord »

Lilgreenman wrote:Why did they cast a Brit as Carol Marcus?
Because she looks right and there's nothing wrong with having her grow up in Britain in this universe?
Marcus says that some Starfleet officer confessed that Khanberbatch coerced him to blow up the London base; how would he have been able to confess after everything was blown up?
He leaves a message behind using the advanced technology used by modern suicide bombers.
What's the deal with the robot bridge guy? How can you reconcile him with Soong being such a radical genius?
Who knows? Who cares, for that matter. Different time line, different dates for technological achievements.
Why did they beam Spock down to chase Khan on foot at the end rather than just beaming him up when he landed, and why did Khan grab that longcoat?
The couldn't get a sensor lock on Khan and Khan grabbed the coat to look cool, -err I mean to not look exactly like the guy who just jumped out of the crashed starship.


Trying to date the point of divergence is fucking stupid. Trek has had time travel episodes since the original series and if everything from the original series and later is changed, then the time travel episodes change and things happen differently throughout the timeline, including every time they traveled to Earth's past. Just roll with it.
The Excellent Prismatic Spray. For when you absolutely, positively must kill a motherfucker. Accept no substitutions. Contact a magician of the later Aeons for details. Some conditions may apply.
User avatar
Vanas
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2005-03-12 05:31pm
Location: Surfing the Moho
Contact:

Re: Star Trek into Darkness - Synopsis

Post by Vanas »

Imperial Overlord wrote:
Lilgreenman wrote: What's the deal with the robot bridge guy? How can you reconcile him with Soong being such a radical genius?
Who knows? Who cares, for that matter. Different time line, different dates for technological achievements.
Thinking about it more, there *were* androids in TOS, IIRC. Data's fancy because of his SCIENCE! brain, not because he's an android.
According to wikipedia, "the Mohorovičić discontinuity is the boundary between the Earth's crust and the mantle."
According to Starbound, it's a problem solvable with enough combat drugs to turn you into the Incredible Hulk.
User avatar
Gandalf
SD.net White Wizard
Posts: 16363
Joined: 2002-09-16 11:13pm
Location: A video store in Australia

Re: Star Trek into Darkness - Synopsis

Post by Gandalf »

Lord Woodlouse wrote:The point of divergence is the destruction of the USS Kelvin. Khan pre-dates that by a wide margin.
Not necessarily.

One of the weird things that keeps happening in Trek is that people from the future affect the present through actions in the past. So present actions (such as the Kelvin's destruction) can affect future events, and as such people from that future will affect the past differently.
"Oh no, oh yeah, tell me how can it be so fair
That we dying younger hiding from the police man over there
Just for breathing in the air they wanna leave me in the chair
Electric shocking body rocking beat streeting me to death"

- A.B. Original, Report to the Mist

"I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately."
- George Carlin
whiteknightleo
Redshirt
Posts: 4
Joined: 2013-03-23 11:28am
Location: Char, interning with the Overseers in charge of mineral production

Re: Star Trek into Darkness - Synopsis

Post by whiteknightleo »

Saw the film and it entertained me.

My issue? The butchering of orbit mechanics. The shown scene was impossible. Literally, physically impossible. The Enterprise couldn't have fallen from the Moon to the Earth at that speed without firing its impulse drives for that purpose, but the warp core was off and the ship had no power.

This movie convinced me that everyone who thinks Trek does science better than Wars is absolutely nuts.
User avatar
Lord Revan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 12238
Joined: 2004-05-20 02:23pm
Location: Zone:classified

Re: Star Trek into Darkness - Synopsis

Post by Lord Revan »

whiteknightleo wrote:Saw the film and it entertained me.

My issue? The butchering of orbit mechanics. The shown scene was impossible. Literally, physically impossible. The Enterprise couldn't have fallen from the Moon to the Earth at that speed without firing its impulse drives for that purpose, but the warp core was off and the ship had no power.

This movie convinced me that everyone who thinks Trek does science better than Wars is absolutely nuts.
don't impulse engines have independent reactors (or is that just Ent-D)
I may be an idiot, but I'm a tolerated idiot
"I think you completely missed the point of sigs. They're supposed to be completely homegrown in the fertile hydroponics lab of your mind, dried in your closet, rolled, and smoked...
Oh wait, that's marijuana..."Einhander Sn0m4n
User avatar
Stark
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 36169
Joined: 2002-07-03 09:56pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Star Trek into Darkness - Synopsis

Post by Stark »

I don't mean to sound gleeful, but when normal people say a movie is good and fat people say OMG TEH SCIENCEZ, that's a good sign that the actual movie is good.
User avatar
Connor MacLeod
Sith Apprentice
Posts: 14065
Joined: 2002-08-01 05:03pm
Contact:

Re: Star Trek into Darkness - Synopsis

Post by Connor MacLeod »

I think you're amused more by the 'a certain subset of closeminded nerds complaining about their preconceptions being violated and hating it.' rather than the 'not being scientific' thing itself.
User avatar
Iroscato
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2360
Joined: 2011-02-07 03:04pm
Location: Great Britain (It's great, honestly!)

Re: Star Trek into Darkness - Synopsis

Post by Iroscato »

whiteknightleo wrote:Saw the film and it entertained me.

My issue? The butchering of orbit mechanics. The shown scene was impossible. Literally, physically impossible. The Enterprise couldn't have fallen from the Moon to the Earth at that speed without firing its impulse drives for that purpose, but the warp core was off and the ship had no power.

This movie convinced me that everyone who thinks Trek does science better than Wars is absolutely nuts.
You're staring into an infinity pit of madness going down this road, mate. We're talking about ships that travel across the galaxy at superluminal speeds, meet aliens who are all humans with bumpy heads, and all speak perfect English thanks to translators that turn any language into the mother tongue of Earth. Literally, physically impossible don't matter a shit in this game.
And who the hell thinks Trek does science better than Wars, or vice versa?
Yeah, I've always taken the subtext of the Birther movement to be, "The rules don't count here! This is different! HE'S BLACK! BLACK, I SAY! ARE YOU ALL BLIND!?

- Raw Shark

Destiny and fate are for those too weak to forge their own futures. Where we are 'supposed' to be is irrelevent.

- SirNitram (RIP)
User avatar
Lord Revan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 12238
Joined: 2004-05-20 02:23pm
Location: Zone:classified

Re: Star Trek into Darkness - Synopsis

Post by Lord Revan »

Chimaera wrote: And who the hell thinks Trek does science better than Wars, or vice versa?
a very small subset of trekkies, granted they're probably the same ones that wouldn't go see this film since "it's not like the old ones".
I may be an idiot, but I'm a tolerated idiot
"I think you completely missed the point of sigs. They're supposed to be completely homegrown in the fertile hydroponics lab of your mind, dried in your closet, rolled, and smoked...
Oh wait, that's marijuana..."Einhander Sn0m4n
User avatar
Darksider
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5271
Joined: 2002-12-13 02:56pm
Location: America's decaying industrial armpit.

Re: Star Trek into Darkness - Synopsis

Post by Darksider »

Saw the movie, didn't love it, didn't hate it. The way they made Kahn the villain and re-hashed the ending of TWoK has me seriously concerned that the re-boot franchise is just going to be a re-hash of the old continuity's "greatest hits." Are they just going to take whatever from the old trek was most popular and re-do it in the next movie or are they going to do something original with the characters that we haven't seen before?
And this is why you don't watch anything produced by Ronald D. Moore after he had his brain surgically removed and replaced with a bag of elephant semen.-Gramzamber, on why Caprica sucks
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Star Trek into Darkness - Synopsis

Post by The Romulan Republic »

Maybe the next film will be about the Borg. Or going back in time to save whales.

Although it would be interesting to see Kirk fighting the Borg, I also want new things.
User avatar
mercury01
Redshirt
Posts: 13
Joined: 2009-12-11 07:36pm

Re: Star Trek into Darkness - Synopsis

Post by mercury01 »

The Romulan Republic wrote:Maybe the next film will be about the Borg. Or going back in time to save whales.
Or going back in time to save whales from the Borg.
Image
User avatar
Havok
Miscreant
Posts: 13016
Joined: 2005-07-02 10:41pm
Location: Oakland CA
Contact:

Re: Star Trek into Darkness - Synopsis

Post by Havok »

Borg whales.
Image
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it.
Blank Yellow (NSFW)
"Mostly Harmless Nutcase"
User avatar
Kuja
The Dark Messenger
Posts: 19322
Joined: 2002-07-11 12:05am
Location: AZ

Re: Star Trek into Darkness - Synopsis

Post by Kuja »

Lokhanus.
Image
JADAFETWA
User avatar
Havok
Miscreant
Posts: 13016
Joined: 2005-07-02 10:41pm
Location: Oakland CA
Contact:

Re: Star Trek into Darkness - Synopsis

Post by Havok »

Spermcutus.
Image
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it.
Blank Yellow (NSFW)
"Mostly Harmless Nutcase"
User avatar
Kuja
The Dark Messenger
Posts: 19322
Joined: 2002-07-11 12:05am
Location: AZ

Re: Star Trek into Darkness - Synopsis

Post by Kuja »

Havok wrote:Spermcutus.
That would be borgified Kirk.
Image
JADAFETWA
User avatar
Darksider
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5271
Joined: 2002-12-13 02:56pm
Location: America's decaying industrial armpit.

Re: Star Trek into Darkness - Synopsis

Post by Darksider »

If they try to rip anything from Old Trek for the next movie, I think it'll be TUC. There's bound to be some sort of fallout with the Klingons over the incident on Kronos during Into Darkness, and Kirk and Co will have to clean up the mess.

IIRC TUC is the next most successful and most fondly remembered Trek film after Wrath of Kahn, so I think they'll go there next.
And this is why you don't watch anything produced by Ronald D. Moore after he had his brain surgically removed and replaced with a bag of elephant semen.-Gramzamber, on why Caprica sucks
User avatar
Gaidin
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2646
Joined: 2004-06-19 12:27am
Contact:

Re: Star Trek into Darkness - Synopsis

Post by Gaidin »

Darksider wrote:If they try to rip anything from Old Trek for the next movie, I think it'll be TUC. There's bound to be some sort of fallout with the Klingons over the incident on Kronos during Into Darkness, and Kirk and Co will have to clean up the mess.

IIRC TUC is the next most successful and most fondly remembered Trek film after Wrath of Kahn, so I think they'll go there next.
Spoiler
All things being equal, if they ripped off any plot, TUC is the plot they ripped off here. Just with Kahn in it.
User avatar
Lilgreenman
Redshirt
Posts: 22
Joined: 2013-04-24 04:15pm
Location: Latitude 50 N, Longitude 40 W

Re: Star Trek into Darkness - Synopsis

Post by Lilgreenman »

I actually think that the next one will be their take on Amok Time - 2261 will be the right time for Spock's pon farr, which both Quinto and Saldana have said they want to explore; and they get to sex up the movie without having Kirk shout at a girl in lingerie for no reason.
"Thus I, Wall, hath my role discharged so,
And, being done, thus Wall away doth go."
Post Reply