StarDestroyer.Net BBS

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

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.

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

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 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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?

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".

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?

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.

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.

Borg whales.

Or going back in time to save the Whales from Borgified Khan.

Lokhanus.

Spermcutus.

Havok wrote:Spermcutus.

That would be borgified Kirk.

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.

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

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.