Star Trek Into Darkness (Pre-release)

Jeyl · Dec 11, 2012

Kerr Avon said:
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.

That also got me thinking. How is this film going to handle transporters now that we have a method of transporting individuals solar systems away to a source even while it's at warp speed? Are they going to say "Oh, that method was too troubling and we don't want anyone else to get sliced up in our water system".

$20 says they're going to treat the transwarp beaming like the TR-116 Rifle from Deep Space Nine. The weapon fired a projectile that would travel past SEVERAL WALLS and successfully hit it's target, but it was abandoned because..... it worked.

jlee562 · Dec 11, 2012

DARTH SABER said:
exactly my point...Apparently TOS is allowed to use this rule of sci-fi, but Nu Trek must adhere to real science. :lol

Touche.

I mean look, we all have to suspend disbelief with the ST series as it is. But for some reason, Warp drive just seems more plausible than the Enterprise being built on earth and diving under water.

CessnaDriver · Dec 11, 2012

The didn't just pull it out their butts in the sixites. Jeffries was a man of aerospace afterall, they tried to do some homework and come up with something that seemed plausible.

Riceball · Dec 11, 2012

Jeyl said:
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?".

Now, that would be cool to see; that would have a very anime feel to it and, if done right, would be very visually impressive.

DARTH SABER · Dec 11, 2012

Kerr Avon said:
Yes, but ST has been generally able to keep a consistent premise regarding it's own science.

So, a new rule now? A rule to justify TOS while condemning Nu Trek? :lol

I love the way the goelpost gets pushed further back every time a caparable flaw is found between old Trek and Nu Trek.
So what is considered the acceptable amount consistency that Trek must adhere to?

They sometimes bend it, but don't break it usually.

So whats the eacceptable "bend" ratio ? And who decides what is the acceptbale "bend" ratio?
And how do you measure the "bend" ratio?

If they say this is a rule, they don't then break it without significant circumstances

And who decides what is an acceptable and justifiable "circumstance" to break a rule?

quote 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.

t is magic...Just like the genesis device. A device that was established early on in the film as requiring a stable foundation (such as a planet) in order to function.
All of a sudden, the genesis device explodes in space, and somehow it now has the ability to create a gravity well that pulls in "space dust" from around the galaxy to create a planet...And a a sun as well...??:confused.
So how come a gravity well isnt created when the genesis device is detonated on an actual planet, or in a cave? Wouldnt the gravity well pull the planet in on itself, or pull space dust from around the galaxy and envelope the existing planet?
It seems the genesis device works just as it needs to when the story requires it.

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'

Kind of like Bones jumping through the time gate and all of a sudden the Enterprise dissapears.....but yet the crew who beamed down from the enterprise are still there?
:lol

Science is based on a method of emperical analysis and repeatable experimentation. TOS, TNG, and DS9 pretty much kept to that.

No they didnt...Example -Nearly every theory of time travel in Star Trek changes from one story to another.

JJ
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.

Reminds me of Enemy Within - Sulu and crew are stuck on planet freezing their butts off and they cant get beamed aboard the enterprise because the transporters are malfunctioning...Apparently no one though of using a shuttle to get them. lol
I see the same exact flaws in Nu Trek, that have been around since old trek.

Riceball · Dec 11, 2012

jlee562 said:
Touche.

I mean look, we all have to suspend disbelief with the ST series as it is. But for some reason, Warp drive just seems more plausible than the Enterprise being built on earth and diving under water.

Because building a starship on planet like Earth is very impractical. By building something as large as a starship within a gravity well that's at least the equivalent of Earth means that the ship haa to be made so that it won't collapse under its own weight, something that's a waste for something that's (presumably) not meant to ever land. It's also easier to build because the size and especially the weight of the components used to build the ship are no longer an issue when they're in 0G. Then there's the matter of launching such a large and heavy mass up into space once it's done being built, a lot of wasted energy when it could have just been built in space to begin with.

I'm not saying that it's not possible, we do build carriers and cruise liners on dry land but they're meant to withstand planetary gravity and don't have to be launched into space.

rodneyfaile · Dec 11, 2012

I saw Bond drive a Lotus underwater, but that was just a movie.

Kerr Avon · Dec 11, 2012

DARTH SABER said:
So, a new rule now? A rule to justify TOS while condemning Nu Trek? :lol

I love the way the goelpost gets pushed further back every time a caparable flaw is found between old Trek and Nu Trek.
So what is considered the acceptable amount consistency that Trek must adhere to?

You honestly expect someone to design a factor to say how far something can be done to satisfy your needs? Talk about ego.

t is magic...Just like the genesis device. A device that was established early on in the film as requiring a stable foundation (such as a planet) in order to function.
All of a sudden, the genesis device explodes in space, and somehow it now has the ability to create a gravity well that pulls in "space dust" from around the galaxy to create a planet...And a a sun as well...??:confused.
So how come a gravity well isnt created when the genesis device is detonated on an actual planet, or in a cave? Wouldnt the gravity well pull the planet in on itself, or pull space dust from around the galaxy and envelope the existing planet?
It seems the genesis device works just as it needs to when the story requires it.

Your misunderstanding about the Genesis effect is your fault, not inconsistency. First, they clearly stated the cave was just a small test. Second, how do you know the cave didn't pull in matter and create larger cave? I don't mean to make you seem like an idiot here, but if you take away from a hole, what do you get? A bigger hole. We don't know how large the cave was to begin with, but it was pretty freaking huge after the Genesis test. It seems to me you just weren't paying attention.

Kind of like Bones jumping through the time gate and all of a sudden the Enterprise dissapears.....but yet the crew who beamed down from the enterprise are still there?
:lol

Honestly? Story would have been pretty short if it was just Bones back in time. A reasonable expectation though, those in the immediate vicinity have to be shielded from changes in time. It'd be pretty stupid for you to let someone go through and cause the time portal to be prevented from ever being created or impact everyone in the immediate vicinity. Time travel is pretty wibbly wobbly to begin with and quite frankly was used too often as a cruch for lesser writers.

No they didnt...Example -Nearly every theory of time travel in Star Trek changes from one story to another.

I never said the series were perfect, simply better than the crapfest of JJ. Usually if there were inconsitencies it between different episodes or series. JJ couldn't keep his own rules consistent in his one movie.

Reminds me of Enemy Within - Sulu and crew are stuck on planet freezing their butts off and they cant get beamed aboard the enterprise because the transporters are malfunctioning...Apparently no one though of using a shuttle to get them. lol

The reason, they didn't actually have shuttles in that episode. It's silly, but yes, Roddenberry wanted shuttles but they couldn't afford them so he had to write an episode almost entirely set with a shuttle to get the TV studio to pony up the cash to build a shuttle set in "The Galileo Seven"

Jeyl · Dec 11, 2012

CessnaDriver said:
The didn't just pull it out their butts in the sixites. Jeffries was a man of aerospace afterall, they tried to do some homework and come up with something that seemed plausible.

To which I shall quote the man himself in regards to the Enterprise's design.

"Without outside help, there's no way you can live. And since anything that man makes can break down, why put equipment outside the hull, where you'd have to go outside the ship to fix it? That - and my desire to play color off it - was the reason I kept the Enterprise exterior as plain as possible."

Design wise that makes sense. And my favorite part about the original Enterprise's design was it's non-reliance on external moving parts. The only thing that really moved on the ship were the two ram scoops in the warp nacelles and the shuttle bay doors, both of which can be accessed internally. JJ's Enterprise now has a multiple moving phaser turrets, unfolding nacelle fins and an opening and closing deflector array, a component which cannot be accessed internally.

JD · Dec 11, 2012

Well, with a The Man of Steel and Lone Ranger clips making their debut today, I think Star Trek is the movie I'm looking forward to most.

Kevin Gossett · Dec 11, 2012

Am I the only one that watches movies for entertainment?

DARTH SABER · Dec 11, 2012

Kerr Avon said:
You honestly expect someone to design a factor to say how far something can be done to satisfy your needs? Talk about ego.

Well, That seems to be where your reasoning is heading.

Your misunderstanding about the Genesis effect is your fault, not inconsistency.

So the film explains the "space Dust" scenario? Where exactly was that in the film?

First, they clearly stated the cave was just a small test.

Yes they did....Which answers absolutely nothing about the geneses device pulling space dust to create a planet.

Second, how do you know the cave didn't pull in matter and create larger cave?

You dont create a cave by "pulling IN matter"...You create a cave by taking OUT matter.

I don't mean to make you seem like an idiot here, but if you take away from a hole, what do you get? A bigger hole.

First of all, a "hole" is empty space...If you take away from "empty space" youre actually FILLING it up...So technically the cave would be smaller.

So, are you now saying that the genesis device "takes away" matter rather than collects it???
I guess the genesis device magically decides to PULL IN mater when in needs to create a planet, and then magically decides to TAKE AWAY matter when in needs to create a cave?

...And no, you didnt make me sound like an idiot.

We don't know how large the cave was to begin with, but it was pretty freaking huge after the Genesis test. It seems to me you just weren't paying attention.

No, it seems youre assuming the size of the cave answers the Genesis question....It doesnt.

Honestly? Story would have been pretty short if it was just Bones back in time. A reasonable expectation though, those in the immediate vicinity have to be shielded from changes in time. It'd be pretty stupid for you to let someone go through and cause the time portal to be prevented from ever being created or impact everyone in the immediate vicinity. Time travel is pretty wibbly wobbly to begin with and quite frankly was used too often as a cruch for lesser writers.

I was just talking about this a few posts back....TOS is allowed "reasonable explanations" for its flaws....But Nu Trek must have ALL of its explanations IN THE FILM. As Jeyl said "If its not in the film it doesnt count...Unless its old trek. :lol.

Bryancd · Dec 11, 2012

Kevin Gossett said:
Am I the only one that watches movies for entertainment?

Quite you!

greatwazoo42 · Dec 11, 2012

Kevin Gossett said:
Am I the only one that watches movies for entertainment?

I do too. So do most of these guys but they'd never admit it. Too busy arguing minutia until even the dead horse gets up and goes home.

Kerr Avon · Dec 11, 2012

DARTH SABER said:
You dont create a cave by "pulling IN matter"...You create a cave by taking OUT matter.

First of all, a "hole" is empty space...If you take away from "empty space" youre actually FILLING it up...So technically the cave would be smaller.

A hole is not empty space. A hole is defined by the empty space bordered by matter. Otherwise you have an undistinct 'empty space' without defining where the hole ends and matter begins. If you put a device in a hole that can reorganize matter, strip down atoms to basic electrons, neutrons and protons, and then can rearrange it, it has to get that mass somewhere to build something new. So what does it do? It grabs the boundaries of the empty space defining the hole, which is the interior sides of the cave, rearranges it and makes the garden paradise that was inside the Genesis cave. It can't create something from nothing, that was made very clear. To make the plants, water, etc it had to take the dead rock, strip it to basic atomic elements and rearrange it. This makes a hole bigger, by stripping away the original perimeter of the hole to get the mass it needs. It doesn't necessarily have to occupy the same volume because different atoms have different masses, and different bond lengths between atoms. For instance, water in a liquid state occupies less volume than water in a frozen state. We can certainly assume some matter is converted into energy in the process as well.

jlee562 · Dec 11, 2012

Riceball said:
Because building a starship on planet like Earth is very impractical. By building something as large as a starship within a gravity well that's at least the equivalent of Earth means that the ship haa to be made so that it won't collapse under its own weight, something that's a waste for something that's (presumably) not meant to ever land. It's also easier to build because the size and especially the weight of the components used to build the ship are no longer an issue when they're in 0G. Then there's the matter of launching such a large and heavy mass up into space once it's done being built, a lot of wasted energy when it could have just been built in space to begin with.

I'm not saying that it's not possible, we do build carriers and cruise liners on dry land but they're meant to withstand planetary gravity and don't have to be launched into space.

No, no, I'm agreeing with you about the Enterprise being built in orbit. I was saying that it's easy to suspend disbelief about the bigger things in Star Trek, like Warp Drive; which is theoretically possible, but unimaginable with today's technology and the technology of the foreseeable future.

But that suspension of disbelief only goes so far. For me anyway. The Enterprise being built on earth (and in Iowa, for some reason, not San Francisco as it was) is one of those things that sticks out as implausible.

DARTH SABER · Dec 11, 2012

A hole is not empty space. A hole is defined by the empty space bordered by matter

Exactly, a hole is empty space...if the empty space pulls in the bordering matter, you get a collapsed cave....no more hole.
As for the rest of your explanation, you're simply making assumptions from the little fictional information given in Wrath of Khan.

The bottom line is both red matter and the genesis device are fictional objects for entertainment. I could easily come up with a drawn out fan-fix explanation regarding red matter and its possibility of a bound state, or how t is able to create a gravity well or singularity but I'm not going to....my point is not to defend by Trek...it's to simply point out the clear flaws in both, new, and old trek.

Edwardowan · Dec 11, 2012

jlee562 said:
No, no, I'm agreeing with you about the Enterprise being built in orbit. I was saying that it's easy to suspend disbelief about the bigger things in Star Trek, like Warp Drive; which is theoretically possible, but unimaginable with today's technology and the technology of the foreseeable future.

But that suspension of disbelief only goes so far. For me anyway. The Enterprise being built on earth (and in Iowa, for some reason, not San Francisco as it was) is one of those things that sticks out as implausible.

perhaps they can alter the gravity field... they can "add gravity" within the ship in space why couldn't they do the opposite at an earth shipyard?
Perhaps they beam the ship into space afterwards... they never did show us how the ship ended up in orbit after all. They did beam two large whales into a Klingon ship... (does that count?

) Having said all that I too feel that something of that size with its final destination being space should have been built in space.

Kerr Avon · Dec 11, 2012

DARTH SABER said:
Exactly, a hole is empty space...if the empty space pulls in the bordering matter, you get a collapsed cave....no more hole.

No, a hole is an empty space bordered by some matter. How big is a hole in the wall if there is no wall to have a hole in it? The Genesis device didn't pull in the entire planetoid, it just ate up and converted a portion of the matter in the hole, making the hole bigger.

DARTH SABER · Dec 11, 2012

No, a hole is an empty space bordered by some matter.

Exactly, a HOLE is an EMPTY SPACE bordered by some matter...were talking aboutthe hole, not what borders it. if that matter is pulled INTO the empty space, then it's no longer empty space.

. How big is a hole in the wall if there is no wall to have a hole in it?

How big is the hole if you fill it with matter? There is no hole.

Star Trek Into Darkness (Pre-release)

Master Member

Sr Member

Master Member

Master Member

Master Member

Master Member

Sr Member

Master Member

Master Member

Master Member

Master Member

Master Member

Master Member

Master Member

Master Member

Sr Member

Master Member

Sr Member

Master Member

Master Member

Similar threads