Stark Trek Into Darkness *SPOILERS*

[Admiral Valdemar]

I presume this is the right forum or it...

Anyway, just got back from seeing it. And wow. That was fun. I'm still digesting it, but I ponder, as with Iron Man 3, a split with the fans here. There are aspects of this that I can only imagine will either make people squee or get frustrated. When I've got more time, I'll give more detail. Suffice to say, I was happy with the direction they took this film and the references to the original universe Spock came from (i.e. the TOS universal timeline) and the subverting of a certain famous scene.

Also, Benedict Cumberbuns plays a devilish villain, though through creative editing of the trailer, a lot of things pan out differently. I'm sure people noticed that it isn't the Big E smashing into SF.

Eh, more coherent thoughts when I'm collected. I think it's worth seeing at the IMAX for sure. Avoid 3D, as always.

[Enigma]

Everything is pretty much explained in the other thread. Forget what I wrote. Derp.

[Jon]

So, how far from Earth is Kronos? Because the Federation now possesses the technology, in a device that can be carried in a duffel bag, to beam directly between those two planets? Also, in the time it took Carol to run from sickbay to the Bridge, the Enterprise traversed the entire distance between the Klingon Neutral Zone (from which Kronos is apparently clearly visible?) and Earth?

[Stark]

Remember in the first movie where they can transport over FTL distances? Should they have just forgotten?

[Jon]

Not at all, I just thought those worlds were a significant distance apart but now point to point beaming between them is achievable with a small device and a starship can apparently get there in minutes- there is no cut in the sequence between the Enterprise jumping to warp to escape the Vengeance whilst Carol goes from Sickbay to the Bridge and it drops out of warp over Earth's moon.

[Stark]

I don't know if you noticed, but this movie is not in the old continuity. When you learn something, you should accept it, and not say BUT BUT BUT THE ENCYCLOPEDIA.

The first movie also suggested the trip to Vulcan was absurdly short (especially compared to the trip to Lorentz) and so this tells us about the shape of the Federation. It's not a problem until they fuck it up.

[DaveJB]

So, how far from Earth is Kronos?

Can't be that far, since Archer's Enterprise was able to make the trip from Earth to Kronos in the space of just a few days with a much slower warp drive.

[Eternal_Freedom]

I thoroughly enjoyed that. Having heard the rumours and the speculation and so on I was expecting to be dissapointed but I was not. Great fun, well paced I think and Cumberbatch makes an excellent villain.

[Batman]

So, how far from Earth is Kronos?

Can't be that far, since Archer's Enterprise was able to make the trip from Earth to Kronos in the space of just a few days with a much slower warp drive.

You really don't want to go there even in the old continuity. Trust me.

[Stark]

At least in the new stuff its because the ships are just really fast and not because the old continuity was a giant steaming pile of shit spagetti.

[Batman]

You're right. That should have been 'especially' in the old continuity.

[Dark Primus]

Don't also forget the warp chart seems to contradict itself in TNG and onwards in every episode. In TOS the warp seemed to be more faster, or at least gave the impression the warp speeds in that time covered far greater distances in shorter amount of time. And new Trek seems to hang closer to TOS warp speeds.

[Batman]

Faster, at least in this particular context, means being able to cover a distance in less time by default, you know.

[charlemagne]

Saw it yesterday, liked it quite a bit. Minor annoyances include the lensflares, and plot wise I thought the old "there's no other ships around at all" trope was pretty stupid, especially when you consider the insane warp speeds. Overall, the turns and twists work, even if some of them are foreshadowed heavily. I liked how familiar elements where subverted.

I guess the next movie will take place after the 5 year mission and they'll be able to drop the "Kirk isn't ready" angle.

[Prometheus Unbound]

This "no ships in range" thing - could it be a result of Starfleet being destroyed in the last film?

[charlemagne]

Yeah ok, it still seemed weird that they're close enough to earth to get pulled in and there's just no other ship, maybe not even Starfleet, that would show up worrying about the slugfest. Maybe Admiral Marcus made everyone stand down or something. Still seemed weird to me.

This is nothing I got worked up about, though.

[Stark]

'Starfleet' wasn't destroyed in 2009; half a dozen ships were. The rest of the fleet was off somewhere outside the plot (apparently engaging in battle or detente with the Klingons).

Sorry, after nearly fifty years complaining that Star Trek is about this ship called Enterprise that saves the day is just a joke in itself. At least this wasn't as ridiculous as 'Enterprise goes into nebula and doesn't come out; Starfleet unconcerned'.

[Vanas]

Spacedock seemed pretty busy at the start, I quite liked that there were a number of ships around. I'm assuming that the head of Starfleet might well have the authority to send them away from Earth while he's swanning around in his giant secret doom ship.

But, yeah, I greatly enjoyed the movie. We see Asshole Kirk actually get chewed out for being a reckless idiot at the start, which was a plus, and good pair of villains. Still some criminal under-use of Karl Urban though, his McCoy remains a highpoint.

[Lusankya]

I thought the movie was rubbish.

The music especially kept on dragging me right out of the film. It was like instead of creating actual drama tension, they'd just show Benedict Cumberbatch's face and then do the "bad guy" music. The cold opening was just an exercise in tedium despite being all actiony, because the movie hasn't bothered to give us any reason to care about what these people were and why they were doing it (and no, "he's Captain Kirk" isn't a good enough reason, especially considering the first movie made him out to be a jackass). And the plot "twists" were less twists and more clearly signposted curves. Also, it's wrong to kill people, but it's ok to put them in cryosleep indefinitely? How is that any different?

I enjoyed the redshirt jokes, everything Scotty and Kirk's death scene was well done, if a bit trite and hideously cheapened by the whole resurrection thing.

Overall, I had more sympathy for the villain than for any of the other characters, and I spent the first half of the movie wishing that the movie would end with Benedict Cumberbatch killing J.J. Abrams. I still think that would have made a better movie.

[Batman]

Ouch. And here I thought the first reboot movie was bad.

[Stark]

What do you expect with no Chris Hemsworth?!

[Lusankya]

What do you expect with no Chris Hemsworth?!

There was no Chris Hemsworth in Iron Man 3, but I still would have preferred spending another $20 watching that again to watching Star Trek.

[mr friendly guy]

I am going to say that I enjoyed this one. But then I ignored all the rumours about it so it increased the chances I wouldn't try and second guess the plot, and simply let it unfold.

Even the "why couldn't they just beam that weapon onto Kronos if they can beam a man from Earth to Kronos?" didn't bother me that much.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Even the "why couldn't they just beam that weapon onto Kronos if they can beam a man from Earth to Kronos?" didn't bother me that much.

Since I'm in such a mood, I would speculate that the order to Kirk to fire the weapons from Enterprise rather than beaming them in was a conscious choice by Admiral Marcus to get Kirk accustomed to the idea of cold-blooded killing and bombarding Klingon worlds. Marcus mentions (he was quoting Pike I think) that Kirk is one of their best and he'd undoubtably want Kirk on the front lines in his desired war.

Or that transport gizmo was a Section 31 prototype that Harrison made one-use-only deliberately in order to avoid this problem.

[ray245]

I thought the movie was rubbish.

The music especially kept on dragging me right out of the film. It was like instead of creating actual drama tension, they'd just show Benedict Cumberbatch's face and then do the "bad guy" music. The cold opening was just an exercise in tedium despite being all actiony, because the movie hasn't bothered to give us any reason to care about what these people were and why they were doing it (and no, "he's Captain Kirk" isn't a good enough reason, especially considering the first movie made him out to be a jackass). And the plot "twists" were less twists and more clearly signposted curves. Also, it's wrong to kill people, but it's ok to put them in cryosleep indefinitely? How is that any different?

I enjoyed the redshirt jokes, everything Scotty and Kirk's death scene was well done, if a bit trite and hideously cheapened by the whole resurrection thing.

Overall, I had more sympathy for the villain than for any of the other characters, and I spent the first half of the movie wishing that the movie would end with Benedict Cumberbatch killing J.J. Abrams. I still think that would have made a better movie.

This really sums up my feelings about the movie. The trailers really gave me an expectation that the movie will have so much more to offer in terms of drama and emotions. I still have no idea why they decided to call this film as Star Trek Into darkness.