Star Trek Into Darkness (Pre-release)
- Thread starter Dave Porter
- Start date
Because highly automated systems worked wonders for the original Enterprise, didn't it? Also, you would think that a ship that's 'highly automated' would automatically disable the inertial dampers when:
- The helmsman plots a course for Vulcan.
- The helmsman sets speed to maximum warp.
- The helmsman actually engages warp drive.
But no, the ship still requires him to disable it manually.
And usually the more something is automated, the less crew it needs. Why than are there parts of the ship that are so crowded that crew members are literally walking shoulder to shoulder?
Our own sea based battleships have systems that load missiles onto launchers without the aid of crew members, yet this 'highly automated' futuristic starship still needs crew members to load photon torpedoes into the launchers by hand.
Solo4114
Master Member
FINALLY!! A realistic motivation for a personal vendetta!
Monster Dave
Sr Member
greatwazoo42
Master Member
Tha answers all my questions and fills in most of the plot holes right there.
thumbsup Step Dad 2: The Wrath of Pop.Tha answers all my questions and fills in most of the plot holes right there.
I would go see that and I would be just as PO'd if I owned a 200 year old Vette and some snot nosed punk wrecked it. :lol
rodneyfaile
Sr Member
Maybe there is someone in the Federation who is like Adama from Battlestar Galactica and believes less automation is better.
And don't underestimate the Photon Torpedo Loaders Union.
I'm not arguing about automation vs. hands on, I'm simply trying to convey the elements presented in the movie that the Enterprise has at least 1,000 crew aboard. Heck, I'm willing to argue that the Kelvin had 1,000 crew members onboard and 200 died during Nero's attack.
Mola Rob
Sr Member
According to 100% verified and accurate fan speculation the villain is probably a character that has been part of Star Trek before.
Also it has almost been proven by some fans that according to some reference mentioned somewhere at some point in time that the JJ Enterprise can accommodate approximately 835,000 crew members and their immediate family.
However because of technological advancements only 4 people are actually required to run the ship.
That settles all that nonsense.
Also it has almost been proven by some fans that according to some reference mentioned somewhere at some point in time that the JJ Enterprise can accommodate approximately 835,000 crew members and their immediate family.
However because of technological advancements only 4 people are actually required to run the ship.
That settles all that nonsense.
SmilingOtter
Master Member
Maybe Cumberbatch is playing a Horta, and they're just going to CG over him, like they did with Andy Serkis for Gollum...
Just not very well. Again, as evidenced in The Search for Spock.
Riceball
Master Member
That was because Scotty jerry rigged the automation in ST III, the Enterprise was never meant to operate with near full automation and certainly not engage in combat under jerry rigged automation. Still, you can only automate a combat vessel so much, you need at least enough crew to run 2 - 3 shifts but that's at a minimum and more would be ideal in order to account for casualties and so you have enough spare bodies to handle damage control. Damage control is the big thing, you over automate your damage control then you're in trouble if the automatic damage control gets damaged and you don't have enough spare crew to do damage control manually.
DARTH SABER
Master Member
This exactly the point Im trying to make. Im not here to claim Nu Trek is the end-all-be-all of Trek films because all films have flaws.
Im just pointing out the bias around here with fans who complain about flaws in Nu Trek, while completely ignoring the same type of flaws in old trek.
When someone points out the flaws in old trek it seems perfectly OK for them to invent a fan-fic excuse to justify the mistake....but when it comes to new trek it must adhere to the rule of - "If its not in the film, it doesnt count".
TheDoctor
Sr Member
The old trek has been nit picked for over 40 years. It stands to reason that NuTrek would be nitpicked more. Of course, OldTrek had some semblance of story and character. People nitpick most when they're not being otherwise engaged.
astroboy
Master Member
I'm not a huge trek fan. I've watched some TNG, the movies and almost all of TOS.
After watching the new flick and then doing a marathon of TOS the most obvious difference is the plot holes. The old series told stories that were important. The characters reacted to the circumstances appropriately....regardless of pacing.
But as fun as it was, because JJtrek had to keep the action, tension and urgency flowing, they sacrificed plot. When you sit back and watch it again, the actions of the characters made very little sense. It didn't matter WHAT they were doing as long as it felt dangerous.
It would be nicer if this new one took the action down a step in order to tell a story, but judging from the trailer, the empire strikes back, it's not.
Get Trek back on TV and get some writers that understand what the hell it's supposed to be about. It's not complicated, but sadly I think more cerebral Trek by definition will not bring the viewership numbers that networks require. They need to get outside the usual Nielsen metric of success.
astroboy
Master Member
I remember reading an article about comic books once. They claimed that the reason that there was a lot of creativity in the golden era is that those writers were raised on legitimate science fiction. Whereas the modern comic writers were raised on comic books.
The same could be said about the writers of TOS and the writers of JJ trek (the same guys who wrote Transformers)
Riceball
Master Member
What Trek needed, esp. after Enterprise, was a break from TV but, unfortunately, with the new JJ Trek movies I don't think that's likely now. I'm sure the movies will bring Paramount nearly as much or more money than a TV series would and for less than 7 seasons of a series would cost them. Plus there's also the fact that if you put on a show in the original timeline it would probably end up failing because it would confuse all of the people who would tune in because they only know Trek through the JJ Trek and thinking that it would be set in the JJ Trek timeline/universe. But if they did that all of the old TOS/TNG fans would probably hate it because that vast majority of them hate the JJ Trek and would never watch a TV show set in that universe/timeline.
TOS Trek was masterful at roping 'em in, you had spaceships, rayguns, monsters and hot women all wrapped around morality and cautionary tales, stressing exploration and managed risk for great reward, exploration of the human condition not just space as well.
And they did their homework on how a starship might actually work, what kind of crew would be aboard her.
It made people think, at least it made some people think and that mattered, that made all the difference.
Thats what I want, I want Trek to make people think again about the possibilities especially about the future and what we are capable of, for ourselves and out there one day.
And they did their homework on how a starship might actually work, what kind of crew would be aboard her.
It made people think, at least it made some people think and that mattered, that made all the difference.
Thats what I want, I want Trek to make people think again about the possibilities especially about the future and what we are capable of, for ourselves and out there one day.
I'm a TOS purist so yeah JJ is toast with me, but given good Trek stories I won't care which universe it happens in as long as they channel the TOS message to the viewer. Most series usually forge their own unique way forward anyways so the JJ strings would likely be cut.
Similar threads
