Star Trek Into Darkness [ Spoilers ]

[BlobVanDam]

Really, REALLY loved it.  I just hate when there are more than a few 'lol-wat?' moments.  A couple I can handle, but when there are more than a handful, it bugs me.

Wouldn't a crack in Kirk's visor completely cause the suit to implode?
They were 237,000 miles from Earth when Marus attacked them... A), they didn't think to call Earth for help, but "new Vulcan"?
Does Earth's gravity really extend 237,000 miles?  Let's say it does for a second... then when the ship starts tumbling and spinning,  wouldn't it go into an all-out, out-of-control free fall?  Not sure how it flips/spins... levels off ... flips a bit more... levels off... and so on.
Falling that fast, thrusters aren't going to stop the ship in a matter of seconds without disintegrating it.
Boy, they sure disarmed those 72 photon torpedo's, pulled out the cryo tubes, and re-armed them pretty darn quick.
Since when do hand held communicators have a range or Earth-to-Kronos for Kirk to ping Scotty?
And the other things already mentioned, and I'm sure there are more.

Great movie, but as Blob points out, they ignore too much about the ST lore, and basic physics.

Oh, and Quinto was downright amazing - I liked his performance better than Cumberbatch's.  But, that scream was bad... just bad (and unnecessary).  Khan marooned Kirk; they had history; Kirk was on the communicator directly with him.  Spock just yelled it for shits and giggles.

Agreed on most of this. Quinto has proved that he was very well cast for filling some mighty big shoes. Nimoy will always be best, but Quinto gets my seal of approval.

The only point I'll dispute from your post is the communicator one. I figure they tie into the communication system like a cell phone. Close range they could probably communicate directly, but I'd say they'd be capable of tying into the Enterprise's long range communication system so they could potentially contact anywhere.
In TOS they didn't usually contact anyone that long distance in realtime though. There were several times where it took days to get a response from Starfleet due to the speed of the signal back to Earth.

I liked seeing the communicators get good use in this movie. They didn't just feel like cheap walkie-talkies.

[jingle.boy]

^ On the communicator... theoretically yes.  But again, it ignores all the times in the TV series' where they were "out of communicator range".

One last ... why does one stun gun shot momentarily take out Cumberbatch on the bridge of the Vengeance, but four shots from Uhura and he's still coming at her?  Guess she has some girly phaser?

[King Postwhore]

I can get by the LOL Wuts with how good the movie is.

It's funny how Blob pointed out that Star Trek is much better suited for TV and I agree.  But this formula is just perfect for a 2+ hour film.  Like 2 6 and 8 in the series.  It's the action films that seem most benefit playing in the theaters so I fully endorse the way the new franchise is making these last 2 films.

I would love to see a TV series again and I hope with this success they can springboard to a new series.

[BlobVanDam]

^ On the communicator... theoretically yes.  But again, it ignores all the times in the TV series' where they were "out of communicator range".

Fair point, although I'm willing to excuse that one and put it down to the modernization of the TOS era. To put it into perspective, it's far from the worst offense in the reboot franchise.

It's funny how Blob pointed out that Star Trek is much better suited for TV and I agree.  But this formula is just perfect for a 2+ hour film.  Like 2 6 and 8 in the series.  It's the action films that seem most benefit playing in the theaters so I fully endorse the way the new franchise is making these last 2 films.

I would love to see a TV series again and I hope with this success they can springboard to a new series.

I agree you can't just stick an episode on the big screen and call it a movie (and that's certainly a big criticism of some of the movies). In a general sense, this movie succeeded at what Trek needs to be to work on the big screen, and struck a good balance for the most part. They just don't have a strong enough sense of continuity and accuracy for me to love them as much as I could have, but I really like them nonetheless for what they are. They are very good action movies.

[jingle.boy]

^ On the communicator... theoretically yes.  But again, it ignores all the times in the TV series' where they were "out of communicator range".

Fair point, although I'm willing to excuse that one and put it down to the modernization of the TOS era. To put it into perspective, it's far from the worst offense in the reboot franchise.

tru dat

[jammindude]

I absolutely LOVED the movie...but to be fair, it did convince me of one criticism from many old school ST fans....

It's a fantastic action-adventure film, but the pseudo realistic science and intelligence that separated ST from SW is gone. That is the spirit that separated ST fans from SW fans. Trekkies hold on to a hope that the world will be very similar to the Trek universe in several hundred years, and the high-brow thought and theoretical science is part of making that dream more realistic. Whereas SW fans are a bit more about the mystical and not necessarily as concerned about potential realism.

On that level, JJ has proven to me that he is going to be even better suited for Star Wars than Star Trek....and convinced me that Episode 7 is going to ROCK! 

[Jaq]

...hard science is a part of Star Trek?

 

[BlobVanDam]

...hard science is a part of Star Trek?

 

Nobody said anything about hard science. jammin said pseudo realistic science / theoretical science, and was speaking relative to Star Wars, which had about zero science content, and Trek did include science concepts that are being worked on today.
It was of course far from scientifically accurate, but you could tell they were at least trying, and it's been cited as an inspiration by many scientists, and has been closely tied to NASA on many occasions because of it.

The new movie doesn't seem to have an understanding of basic gravity and air pressure, or even the concept of distance. Most Trek fans I've seen will be the first to admit that Trek is far from hard scifi, so it shouldn't be all that difficult a standard to live up to, but the new movies don't even come close in that regard.

[senecadawg2]

Thoughts after seeing it last night,

-The casting and acting was great, with the standout being Zachary Quinto.
-This movie was genuinely funny. All the crew interaction was fantastic.
-I ought to go back and watch the Wrath of Khan.
-I love what JJ Abrams has done with these last two movies, and I'm excited to see what he has in store for Star Wars episode VII.

[BlobVanDam]

I actually rewatched Space Seed and TWOK today.

[senecadawg2]

I haven't seen any of them  , which is the best to start with?

[BlobVanDam]

I haven't seen any of them  , which is the best to start with?

Space Seed is the TOS episode where Khan is introduced, then The Wrath of Khan movie is a sequel to that, so if you plan to watch both, you should definitely watch Space Seed first. It explains the backstory behind Khan and crew that is very skimmed over in Into Darkness, and Spock's line at the end of Space Seed makes for a good segue into the movie too.

[Kotowboy]

^ On the communicator... theoretically yes.  But again, it ignores all the times in the TV series' where they were "out of communicator range".

Damon Lindelof said they cut a scene where Kirk asked Uhura to get Scotty using the ship's communications but patch it to his communicator - so he's actually talking to Scotty via the Enterprise. He said the scene was cut out as they wanted a hard cut to Scotty in a bar on Earth for the humour in it instead.

[MetalJunkie]

So I've seen it three times now. Once with a group of friends opening night, then with my mom, then with my best friend.

[Kotowboy]

I saw it at midnight in 3D once then at 21:00 the same day in 3D IMAX then again a week later in 2D.

[MrBoom_shack-a-lack]

Ok this is pretty cool:

https://www.ign.com/videos/2013/05/16/death-star-destroys-enterprise-special-edition

[BlackInk]

Yeah, just saw that too. Love the image of the Death Star floating in the background.

"Move along" 

[MrBoom_shack-a-lack]

Haha yea! The Enterprise explosion was top notch!   

[Kotowboy]

Won't play for me.

I get the ad at the start then  nothing.

[Kotowboy]

...

Now it works.

Really great work.

Love the shots of Enterprise in the city

[Kotowboy]

People are already declaring this film a flop after it "only" made $165m in it's opening weekend.

I'd say thats amazing considering it was up against Iron Man 3.

[MetalJunkie]

People are already declaring this film a flop after it "only" made $165m in it's opening weekend.

I'd say thats amazing considering it was up against Iron Man 3.

Not a flop, but disappointed numbers. It made 85 million domestic, 165 million total. Considering the budget was 190 million, that's nowhere near the numbers they want.

[Kotowboy]

ST 09 was out for 6 months. I'm sure Into Darkness will be a big hit after all is said and done.

[rumborak]

Considering the budget was 190 million

One-hundred and ninety million United States dollars. $190,000,000. What the fuck.

Maybe if they laid off the CGI effects, they could make two movies with that money.

[MetalJunkie]

ST 09 was out for 6 months. I'm sure Into Darkness will be a big hit after all is said and done.

Problem, like you mentioned, is that it was up against Iron Man 3, which has raked in over a billion at this point.

[MetalJunkie]

Considering the budget was 190 million

One-hundred and ninety million United States dollars. $190,000,000. What the fuck.

Maybe if they laid off the CGI effects, they could make two movies with that money.

Are CGI budgets still ridiculously high these days? I figure a huge chunk of that is paying for a lot of lead actors. Abrams and the cast have commented on how he likes to build sets wherever possible.

[rumborak]

Different question, one part I didn't get in the movie: Was Qo'nos depicted as a planet that has a small planet crashing into it?
Or did i just see this wrong?

[MetalJunkie]

I saw a large planet with a smaller planet that looked "stuck" to it. There were chunks of the smaller planet broken off and floating in space. Don't know my Trek lore well enough to know if it was Qo'nos.

[Kotowboy]

Considering the budget was 190 million

One-hundred and ninety million United States dollars. $190,000,000. What the fuck.

Maybe if they laid off the CGI effects, they could make two movies with that money.

That's pretty standard these days. Plus Paramount promoted the absolute shit out the the film too.

[faizoff]

Saw it last night, LOVED it. I think the plot/story could've tightened up a bit but other than that was super entertained by it. I think the fact that I have barely seen any other star trek movies and episodes makes me enjoy it more.

[yorost]

Does Earth's gravity really extend 237,000 miles?  Let's say it does for a second... then when the ship starts tumbling and spinning,  wouldn't it go into an all-out, out-of-control free fall?  Not sure how it flips/spins... levels off ... flips a bit more... levels off... and so on.
Falling that fast, thrusters aren't going to stop the ship in a matter of seconds without disintegrating it.

It extends much further than that. Technically, Earth;'s gravity has no distance, it just plays into the universe's system anywhere... but that's not too important, other than to say Earth's well is not spherical, it's modified by all other bodies. However, that distance is reasonable for Earth to be the primary pull.. The break even point between the Sun and Earth is a "little" shy of a million miles, which side you are on of that decides which body you would positively accelerate towards.

I'm going to ignore advanced gravity equations, but with sea level gravity and an object with no orbital velocity or relative speed to Earth, we'd be talking hours to 'fall' to Earth with an eventual speed of about a hundred thousand miles per hour. ...over two hours at that speed tot he moon. Considering what Star Trek poses as warp and impulse, I don't think stopping from that speed in a few seconds would damage the ship.

[jingle.boy]

*more information on gravity than I thought I'd ever know*
Considering what Star Trek poses as warp and impulse, I don't think stopping from that speed in a few seconds would damage the ship.

Normally, I'd agree with you... but with all the damage to the ship, and breaches in the hull, I'd question the "structural integrity" as was so often referred to in Star Trek lore.

[Kotowboy]

Enterprise can go from Warp speed to impulse in seconds due to the inertia dampeners.

Impulse seems to be one of those speeds that is never given a figure. It seems to be one of those As-Fast-As-The-Script-Requires speeds.

I always wondered why, in the series why Enterprise would be racing at warp to get somewhere and then drop to impulse when they were still light years away instead of getting the entire distance in Warp.

Furthermore - one thing that never made sense to me was - Warp 9 apparently wears out the engines - but

They're in Space !! Why can't they have a sudden burst to get to warp 9 then shut off the engines ?

You don't need to be constantly pushing the engines at warp 9 for the entire journey.

[rumborak]

I believe the idea is that the wearing-out comes from maintaining the warp bubble. If the bubble collapses you drop out of warp, and thus back to sub-light speed (where yes, inertia would continue your speed, but it's still only sub-light).

[BlobVanDam]

Enterprise can go from Warp speed to impulse in seconds due to the inertia dampeners.

Impulse seems to be one of those speeds that is never given a figure. It seems to be one of those As-Fast-As-The-Script-Requires speeds.

I always wondered why, in the series why Enterprise would be racing at warp to get somewhere and then drop to impulse when they were still light years away instead of getting the entire distance in Warp.

Furthermore - one thing that never made sense to me was - Warp 9 apparently wears out the engines - but

They're in Space !! Why can't they have a sudden burst to get to warp 9 then shut off the engines ?

You don't need to be constantly pushing the engines at warp 9 for the entire journey.

Since warp speed exceeds the speed of light, it doesn't work on just momentum like a typical body in space. It needs to maintain the warp field to travel by that method. I don't see any reason they couldn't do that when travelling on impulse power though. (Ninja'd by rumby)

As for the situation in the movie, the ship was shot to hell, and they were within the atmosphere of a planet, not in the empty vacuum of space with an intact ship. Not really comparable to slowing down under normal circumstances. The ship likely would have been ripped apart, I would think.