greatwazoo42
Master Member
LOL! Are you talking about JJ and Team's approcah to Star Trek or our government's approach to NASA?
Star Trek Into Darkness (Pre-release)
- Thread starter Dave Porter
- Start date
*in regards to Benedict's character being in the brig*
I remember now! They said that the Dark Knight was a big influence on the film. In The Dark Knight, the Joker allows himself to get caught so he can have a one on one session with the good guys, and later escapes thanks to some clever scheming. I also seem to remember Skyfall saying that the Dark Knight was a big influence on the film, and they had the bad guy get captured, have a one on one session with the good guys and later escapes thanks to some clever scheming. Now we have Benedict's character in the brig, possibly allowing himself to be captured, having one on one time with the good guys and will no doubt escape thanks to some clever scheming.
I remember now! They said that the Dark Knight was a big influence on the film. In The Dark Knight, the Joker allows himself to get caught so he can have a one on one session with the good guys, and later escapes thanks to some clever scheming. I also seem to remember Skyfall saying that the Dark Knight was a big influence on the film, and they had the bad guy get captured, have a one on one session with the good guys and later escapes thanks to some clever scheming. Now we have Benedict's character in the brig, possibly allowing himself to be captured, having one on one time with the good guys and will no doubt escape thanks to some clever scheming.
SSgt Burton
Sr Member
I think the commentary is ridiculous.
This is the age old nonsensical argument of attempting to assign "real World", "modern tecnology" attributes to "purely fictional" technology.
The Enterprise can travel a speeds several times faster than light. How?
It uses a completely made up energy source called Dilithium. It "sounds" like Lithium (an actual element)... but it's not. In fact they originally used the element Lithium, but changed it to Dilithium so there would be no "lithium can't do that" arguments.
The Enterprise travelling at these hyper speeds should kill the crew... but it doesn't (blah blah technobabble blah).
These incredible speeds should cause the ship to disintegrate... but it doesn't (insert more technobabble).
Transporters are "impossible" because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, but they work on Star Trek.
McCoy healed Chekov's deadly brain hemorrhage with a little device that required no surgery and took 20 seconds. Cool? Hell ya! Possible? :lol
Either you find the notion of the Enterprise flying underwater "cool" or "silly", but trying to argue the idea with "modern science" is just as silly.
Obviously UnderwaterPrise is not the author's cup of tea... But if we go and explain away everything "cool" in Star Trek... well their wouldn't be much left to watch. :lol
Kevin
This is the age old nonsensical argument of attempting to assign "real World", "modern tecnology" attributes to "purely fictional" technology.
The Enterprise can travel a speeds several times faster than light. How?
It uses a completely made up energy source called Dilithium. It "sounds" like Lithium (an actual element)... but it's not. In fact they originally used the element Lithium, but changed it to Dilithium so there would be no "lithium can't do that" arguments.
The Enterprise travelling at these hyper speeds should kill the crew... but it doesn't (blah blah technobabble blah).
These incredible speeds should cause the ship to disintegrate... but it doesn't (insert more technobabble).
Transporters are "impossible" because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, but they work on Star Trek.
McCoy healed Chekov's deadly brain hemorrhage with a little device that required no surgery and took 20 seconds. Cool? Hell ya! Possible? :lol
Either you find the notion of the Enterprise flying underwater "cool" or "silly", but trying to argue the idea with "modern science" is just as silly.
Obviously UnderwaterPrise is not the author's cup of tea... But if we go and explain away everything "cool" in Star Trek... well their wouldn't be much left to watch. :lol
Kevin
Actually submerging that fugly thing out of sight is a good idea I support.
astroboy
Master Member
Loki kinda did the same thing in avengers
EyeofSauron
Master Member
its obviously iron patriot!
DARTH SABER
Master Member
Where exactly was the possible science in City on the Edge of Forever (arguably considered the best ST episode)...A giant wheel shaped rock, placed in the middle of newhere that had the ability to transport someone through time, had a pre-recorded instructional guide, along with visual stock footage of history.
there were plenty of Trek episodes that dipped into the realm of fantasy.
Shade88
Sr Member
Kerr Avon
Master Member
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. - Arthur C Clark
jlee562
Sr Member
The first half of the article is correct enough as it is. The Enterprise looks structurally unsound at 1g. Which is to say, under the normal forces of gravity on earth, it would fall apart.
Being in a 0g environment lets you do almost anything structurally.
Kerr Avon
Master Member
Yeah, JJ is just doing things because it'd be "cool" without allowing any sense of logic to come into play. Why would you submerge your starship under water when you have freaking instantaneous matter transport available? Or not use a shuttle? The ship doesn't even have engines that seem to propel it in a way that would permit a VTOL or safe approach. Just slam it into the water. That's brilliant JJ. :facepalm
Abrams is no Jeffries. Don't even go there.
Listen to the commentary track for Star Trek (2009). You'll hear that quote A LOT.
Dave Ward
Sr Member
Didn't see anything in that article that contadicted the idea that the ship could go underwater. Got suspicious the longer the article went on without getting the to point, TBH. But to summarise -
1. Why would you build a ship that could do that?
2. There would be a lot of pressure
1. So it can go underwater, like we're seeing in the trailer.
2. Yup. Guess those crazy future people are able to build some cool stuff
1. Why would you build a ship that could do that?
2. There would be a lot of pressure
1. So it can go underwater, like we're seeing in the trailer.
2. Yup. Guess those crazy future people are able to build some cool stuff
Maybe they will enounter the JJ Seaview down there.
Kerr Avon
Master Member
I'm sorry, that'd require me to spend more money on JJ Abrams, and I can't do that in good conscience.
lollol Same here. Other than the last Star Trek, I have no JAbrams in my home.Like so many of us, I'm only watching new Trek because...it's Trek and no matter what, I'll end up seeing it somehow anyway.
DARTH SABER
Master Member
exactly my point...Apparently TOS is allowed to use this rule of sci-fi, but Nu Trek must adhere to real science. :lol
Kerr Avon
Master Member
Yes, but ST has been generally able to keep a consistent premise regarding it's own science. They sometimes bend it, but don't break it usually. If they say this is a rule, they don't then break it without significant circumstances. The red matter thing, which I have almost entirely blotched out of my memory, was inconsistent if the previous posts are to be believed. You can't change the rules of your own 'science' regularly and expect it to remain 'science,' then it truly IS just 'magic' which has no discernable repeatable pattern.
It's one thing to say, 'this portal was created by an ancient race and allows instant transport to any point in time in any part of the universe' and then stick to those rules and then elsewhere have a 'one drop of this red matter will destroy a solar system' but then say 'a significantly greater amount will only destroy a small section of a planet'
Science is based on a method of emperical analysis and repeatable experimentation. TOS, TNG, and DS9 pretty much kept to that.
JJ Trek is based on 'what's cool and has enough lens flares to ****ing blind you'
Like transporters. JJ used the first movie to invent a way a transporter could be used to send a person to another part of the galaxy without any special requirements that would make it extremely inefficient or costly to do, or had any particular drawback what so ever.
Now they are landing a space ship on a planet and submerging it to keep it close to the crew on the planet. WHY DO THEY EVEN NEED SPACESHIPS ANYMORE???? Seriously, JJ is bad Trek. It's lower than Voyager. And that's BAD.
Last edited:
I've been thinking again. If I was the director of the film, I wouldn't have the Enterprise coming out of the water. That's just silly. BUT if I was forced to, I would have the bubble shield effect on the whole time. It'd be kind of cool to see something like the Enterprise coming out of the water without a single drop on it, and when it's half way out of the water, the transparent bubble will form a crater in the ocean.
Unfortunately Bob and Alex would most likely say "We don't use the bubble shield effects anymore. Shields are now meant to make the hull tougher!". And in which I would reply, "And what of the windows?".
Unfortunately Bob and Alex would most likely say "We don't use the bubble shield effects anymore. Shields are now meant to make the hull tougher!". And in which I would reply, "And what of the windows?".
Similar threads
