How compelling.DB537 said:
At least there is not many lens flares in darkness..
As long as it isn't "Star Trek Into Lense Flare."
Last edited by greatwazoo42; Sep 8, 2012 at 10:29 AM.
Sounds stupid. I'd rather them insert the colon and have it be Star Trek: Into Darkness.DB537 said:
You'd rather them insert something into their colon? That's rather harsh.
Star Trek 2: Dark Territory with Steven Seagal as Khan.
Don't worry... The next film have no lens flare what so ever... They will install huge light spot in all theater to blind you instead so it more realist. jk
Star Trek into darkness. Because space is dark. I think my next film will be Mud Trek into Dirt.
I'm a bit confused as to why they would drop the colon. That's really bothering me the most about it.
Agreed. I remember being pissed off at Enterprise for not having the "Star Trek" in there for the first 2 seasons. It's the little things that get on your nerves!jlee562 said:
It's a dumb title and bad grammar. I made myself watch JJ's first attempt, but I'll probably give this a miss. Even the great Benedict Cumberbatch will have a hard time looking good in this.
Last edited by RokkaRolla; Sep 9, 2012 at 9:12 AM. Reason: replied to wrong quote
Stars are the source of light, so you cannot have a star trek into darkness. Doesn't make sense.
They fly into a black hole maybe?Treadwell said:
I don't think anyone involved in making the last movie knows or understands what a black hole is. Instead of being this point in space where gravity is incredibly strong, it's actually a portal that will do whatever the writers want it to do. Sometimes it will destroy ships, sometimes it won't. Sometimes it will destroy entire planets from the inside out, sometimes it can barely crack a ship right next to it. Sometimes it will send you through different dimensions, sometimes it won't.Orange_Blend said:
They fly into a black hole maybe?
They must have it confused with a plot hole, then.
To be fair, old Star Trek is no stranger to those either...Angelus Lupus said:
Maybe so, but at least there's some semblance of consistency. Transporters for instance always had the rule of not being able to beam through the shields and had a very limited range. Trek09 did away with all two of those rules in one sitting. Not because someone discovered a powerful new source of energy, not because someone is Q, but because someone typed in an equation into a computer on a broken down shuttlecraft.Orange_Blend said:
To be fair, old Star Trek is no stranger to those either...
And isn't it customary that when your ship is about to be captured by a dangerous enemy that you destroy it so it doesn't fall into into their hands? I guess Spock didn't get the memo on that one when he literally let Nero have all the red matter.
But... Um... Spock and Scotty are awesome?Jeyl said:
No. Being awesome because the script says they are is not the same thing. Unfortunately that's all this script seems to have going for it. What's Spock's motivation for wanting Kirk to take command of the Enterprise? Because he's awesome. That's pretty stupid.Orange_Blend said:
Oh I agree with you, trust me.Jeyl said:
One might argue though that Spock's motivation is the restoration of the timeline to some semblance of normality.
Biggest problem with that is that KIRK IS NOT THE SAME CHARACTER!
Completely different upbringing = Not the Kirk that did all that awesome stuff in the other timeline.
Doesn't matter how awesome you are, you can't type a formula into a knackered old system and suddenly give it the capabilities of tech over a century ahead.
Just 'cos you have the code for WIndows7 doesn't mean you can input it on a circa 1980 MS-DOS PC
Reply with Quote