Star Trek Into Darkness (Pre-release)

Jeyl said:

The context of how the Genesis works was spread across two whole movies instead of just one. And unlike Red Matter, the Genesis device was only used ONCE. As for the "sometimes requires a dead planet" argument, that a simulation.

Click to expand...

So the Trek Fan rule book states that contrived plot devices are given a free pass if they span more than one film or used more than once? :lol
How conveneient!


BTW, it Didnt look like a simulatioin inside that cave....It looked like actual results.

Plus the Reliant wasn't in empty space when the Genesis Device detonated. It was in the Mutara Nebula. You know, Nebulas are bodies of gas and dust. If you watch the scene with the Genesis planet beginning to form, you can see it actually consuming the nebula. And once the Genesis planet has finished, the Nebula is gone. .

Click to expand...

So we can now introduce our own fan explanations into films? AWESOME !!

In that case - the reason the Narada and spock's ship werent destroyed the first time they went through the black hole was because, SPock's ship was specifically designed to withstand the gravitational force of a black hole (as explained in the Prequel Comic when Geordi custom designed the ship for him).
The Narada was constructed using Borg technology (As explained in the prequel comic)....Also, the Narada's hull wasnt damaged or compromised, and the Narada wasnt trying to pull away from the black hole with significant resisting force.


At the end of the film The Narada's hull was compromised by the collision of Spocks ship...And add the fact that the red matter was detonated inside the ship (meaning the gravitational force would be pulling the Narada in on itself, ), and add to the fact that the Enterprise opened fire on the Narada, further compromising the ship's integrity.

As for the Enterprise breaking up, well, the enterprise was at full warp pulling away from the force of the black hole...Two opposing forces will result in stress on the ship......Much different scenario than the first time Nero and Spocks ship went through the black hole.

And it didn't create it's own sun

Click to expand...

And yet, there it was..... And inside the cave too!

DARTH SABER said:

SPock's ship was specifically designed to withstand the gravitational force of a black hole (as explained in the Prequel Comic when Geordi custom designed the ship for him).
The Narada was constructed using Borg technology (As explained in the prequel comic).

Click to expand...

Sorry, but you don't get credit for details that aren't in the movie. But don't worry. I give the film the same penalty.

Jeyl said:

Sorry, but you don't get credit for details that aren't in the movie. .

Click to expand...

You mean like space dust from a nebula is adequate to create a successful Genesis planet?

I'm not a Trek purist. I've seen watched most of TOS in reruns through the years, I watched TNG as a kid, but lost interest with DS9. I felt all the movies were pretty meh, but all had moments... well, TWOK that was a truly great flick... even ST:TMP had awesome moments to me that not many other ST movies captured.

Despite seeing every Trek movie in the theater (some multiple times) most of them don't stand out as truly memorable - the TNG movies being the worst of the bunch (and I really dislike IV for some reason). They all just seemed so routine to me, so not special.

I enjoyed JJ's Trek. It was far from perfect and there are parts of it that will make me shake my head and cringe... but, it had a lot of the feeling I want from Star Trek. I don't like Chris Pine as Kirk... I think that's just bad casting. Everyone else holds their own - especially Karl Urban, who was perfect.

I like what I see in the Trek 2 trailer. I am looking forward to this... it looks like a great Trek-popcorn movie. The addition of Cumberbatch could make this the best Trek since TWOK... I just don't get the Dark Knight comparisons at all.

Jeyl said:

The context of how the Genesis works was spread across two whole movies instead of just one. And unlike Red Matter, the Genesis device was only used ONCE. As for the "sometimes requires a dead planet" argument, that a simulation.

Plus the Reliant wasn't in empty space when the Genesis Device detonated. It was in the Mutara Nebula. You know, Nebulas are bodies of gas and dust. If you watch the scene with the Genesis planet beginning to form, you can see it actually consuming the nebula. And once the Genesis planet has finished, the Nebula is gone. And it didn't create it's own sun.

Click to expand...

The Genesis cave was stage II of the project, a controlled experiment if you will. It was the next step in the project after computer simulations, simulations that we possibly saw in the Genesis project briefing but the Genesis cave was no simulation. Remember that Carol Marcus said that the Starfleet Corps of Engineers hollowed out the cave in that asteroid and it was the Genesis device that created the life in it, as well as the sun. Although it was never explicitly stated that the Genesis device had that capability it must be assumed that it was a result of the Genesis device since Starfleet doesn't have the tech to create a miniature sun much less a full sized one that the Genesis planet orbited.

DARTH SABER said:

You mean like space dust from a nebula is adequate to create a successful Genesis planet?

Click to expand...

lol. With that kind of logic, we can't say Geordi LaForge is black unless the series says he is.

This whole discussion has gotten me thinking about what Trek really "means." Like, old Trek vs. new Trek. What's the difference, and how much of that is a matter of the substance of the stories vs. other stylistic elements?

In the end, I think it's a little of both. Old Trek, I think, often (NOT always) lacked the emotional "punch." It's there in some moments in the films -- most of TWOK, the bits with Kirk and his son's death in #3, Picard losing it and smashing the ship models in FC, etc. -- but Trek at its worst seemed to be very much about showing off spaceships and lasers for the sake of spaceships and lasers. Technobabble for technobabble's sake. That's fun, but it's really just another kind of "popcorn." The technobabble did seem to help make it a lot more grounded in reality, though. Dyson tubes, for example, make perfect sense (kind of like the ratlines of a wooden ship). But much of that was in the background of Trek. You knew it went into the creation, but it wasn't often discussed on screen, particularly in the film versions. (The shows were a different story.)

New Trek seems very much about grand emotional tales, even as it's sloppier about the science. Substantively, it's less concerned with the technobabble except as a pure plot expedient (I've calculated the transwarp equation/convenient plot device!). The "science" seems a lot less scientifically grounded. Seems, mind you. I think the film comes across as having put less care into making the universe feel scientifically based, and that's why it feels like "space fantasy."

Stylistically, I think the two are VERY different. Old Trek was far more deliberately paced (sometimes to awful effect, as in TMP), whereas New Trek seems a lot faster-paced and action-packed.


When I really started thinking about it, though, Old Trek's FILMS are actually fairly similar to New Trek's films, just in a somewhat older style. The FILMS were always a lot more slapdash about the science. The FILMS were less about exploration and "new worlds and new civilizations." The FILMS were action sci-fi. Still a little more scientific than the "space fantasy" we get now, but how much of that came from the foundation that the multiple TV shows provided? How much did we carry over from the show into the theater as the sort of unspoken but already understood attitudes abotu that universe?

Think of it this way. If you erased from your brain all of what you showed up with in the theater about the Trek TV shows, with the possible exception of Trek 1 and 5, and MAYBE Insurrection (but even there, only a little), how different were the FILMS from Trek '09? I'd submit not all THAT different. They were frequently just as absurd in their science, just as action-packed, and in several cases just as emotionally driven. We can quibble over whether they were better told stories, but many of the Trek films really aren't all that better told.



So, to me, the real difference is that the Trek SHOWS are very different from the Trek FILMS, but that the films are all fairly consistent in their overarching style, albeit as products of their time.

lol. With that kind of logic, we can't say Geordi LaForge is black unless the series says he is.

Click to expand...

Unlike the logic of taking the info we know about skin color and melanin and then claiming Geordie is black because someone painted him that color.

I wonder if JJ and team actually have secretly remade Spock's Brain into the movie and all we've seen so far is subterfuge?

Solo4114 said:

The technobabble did seem to help make it a lot more grounded in reality, though. Dyson tubes, for example, make perfect sense (kind of like the ratlines of a wooden ship).

Click to expand...

I think that you're confusing Dyson spheres with Jeffries tubes.

Good Trek in it's best form should also be good Sci Fi, it should make people think a little after the action, drama and FX are over.

What has JJ done to do this?

As someone who often pretends to be an astrophysicist and is getting a degree in engineering, I am tremendously sad that some of you are under the impression that the original series was somehow more sciency than red matter. Really, it's pathetic that your grasp of modern science is so thin that you accept a magic box and green skinned space babes as plausible but you don't accept a black hole device powered by particles of an unknown nature. All of it is bunk and you're just blinded by your rose colored glasses. All of you need to go watch Galaxy Quest, read Redshirts, and then come back here, so we can discuss the plot devices (red matter as a poorly implemented MacGuffin) instead of pretending that science actually exists in the world of Trek.

Some over on the ELR forums are speculating what if Peter Weller is Khan and Cumberbatch is his feather-haired sidekick Joachim?

Actually that would jibe well with the voice over in the trailer where he says something along the lines of "What would you do to defend your family." It sounds like a rhetorical question. So what if Khan and the augments are in a Klingon prison. Kahn dies and Joachim returns to have his revenge? Interesting...

Ok, I'm going to throw my own theory as to who Benedict Cumberbatch might be playing.




Maybe something happened to Khan on the Botany Bay that resulted in his death. His stasis chamber in Space Seed did have a fatal flaw that would have killed him if Kirk didn't do something. Maybe whoever tried waking him up didn't know what to do. Yaukim, devastated that he and Khan's other followers have been robbed of a chance at starting their own empire, decides to take revenge on the world that rejected them.

Kind of a lackluster motive for revenge, I know. But it's a lot better than Nero's motivation by a landslide.

Isn't that what I just said above you?! LOL!!! You stole from me after I stole from the Treks in Sci-Fi forum where a guy stole the idea from ELR! At least I owned up to it.

But why would he be mad at a guy who is a fresh out of Star Fleet Academy, now unbelievably a Captain of the flagship? Kirk couldn't have had enough time to do anything with Botany Bay and have a reason for the nameless guy to go after him.

Bryancd said:

Isn't that what I just said above you?! LOL!!!

Click to expand...

I had to go home from Panara's and wait till I posted it there. Plus, I provided screen caps.

Kerr Avon said:

But why would he be mad at a guy who is a fresh out of Star Fleet Academy, now unbelievably a Captain of the flagship? Kirk couldn't have had enough time to do anything with Botany Bay and have a reason for the nameless guy to go after him.

Click to expand...

That's assuming it's revenge against Kirk. In that synopsis Paramount released it said that the bad guy had returned to Earth and detonated the fleet. So it sounds like the attack is on the Federation not Kirk per se, they are just assigned to stop him.

Kerr Avon said:

But why would he be mad at a guy who is a fresh out of Star Fleet Academy, now unbelievably a Captain of the flagship? Kirk couldn't have had enough time to do anything with Botany Bay and have a reason for the nameless guy to go after him.

Click to expand...

As uninteresting as this movie keeps getting, I don't think we should assume that Kirk has anything to do with what this character in the beginning. Who's to say that someone else didn't wake up the crew of the Botany Bay.

Jeyl said:

I had to go home from Panara's and wait till I posted it there. Plus, I provided screen caps.

Click to expand...

LOL! :lol