Star Trek Into Darkness (Pre-release)

Co-writer, Roberto Orci on building a starship on Earth:[/B]

Firstly, there is the notion that there is precedent in the novels, etc that components of the ship can be built on Earth and assembled here or there. And the second thing is that the Enterprise is not some flimsy yacht that has to be delicately treated and assembled. The idea that things have to be assembled in space has normally been associated with things that don’t have to be in any kind of pressure situation and don’t ever have to ever enter a gravity well. That is not the case with the Enterprise. The Enterprise actually has to sustain warp, which we know is not actually moving but more a warping of space around it. And we know that its decks essentially simulate Earth gravity and so its not the kind of gravity created by centrifugal force, it is not artificially created by spinning it. It is created by an artificial field and so it is very natural, instead of having to create a fake field in which you are going to have to calibrate everything, to just do it in the exact gravity well in which you are going to be simulating. And the final thing, in order to properly balance warp nacelles, they must be created in a gravity well.

They also point out that it was never established in Canon where the ORIGINAL Enterprise was built, even though its dedication plaque says "SAN FRANCISCO, CA."

Bull****. :darnkids

0g or 1g, a ship would tear itself apart if suddenly accelerated to thousands of times the speed of light. That's what the 'structural integrity field' and 'inertial dampeners' are for. He's just making up **** as they go along to try to make up for a **** poor movie.
 
0g or 1g, a ship would tear itself apart if suddenly accelerated to thousands of times the speed of light. That's what the 'structural integrity field' and 'inertial dampeners' are for. He's just making up **** as they go along to try to make up for a **** poor movie.

I love his explanation for Delta Vega being Vulcan's new moon.... even though canon says Vulcan has no moons.

Bob Orci said:
"We moved the planet to suit our purposes. The familiarity of the name seemed more important as an Easter egg, than a new name with no importance."

With this logic, if they were going to do Star Wars, they'd make Tatooine a vast jungle planet with lots of water.
 
I love his explanation for Delta Vega being Vulcan's new moon.... even though canon says Vulcan has no moons.

I love how Kirks middle name started with an "R" in "Where no man has gone before", but then was changed to Tiberius.

I also like how Klingons never had head ridges and then when the movies were released, they did.l, LOL....but let's not concentrate on those flaws, lets concentrate on JJ trek.
 
It's easy to dismiss ANY criticism of Abrams' Trek as coming from "whiny fans who hate change." This idea was carefully set-up by every interview and comment that Abrams or the writers made. "It's a new timeline, so all bets are off."

This attitude kills any chance for debate about the film. They are the equivalent of "you're either with us or against us."

For the record (because that attitude forces me, the guy who didn't like the film, into a defensive posture): I am not opposed to all change. Ron Moore made Starbuck a girl, put ridges all over the Galactica, changed the nature of the Cylons. So of course his version of Battlestar Galactica sucks, right? Not at all. Plenty to like there. I may not agree with every choice he made, but at least it was possible to have a debate.

Star Trek is far more polarizing. Abrams was too provocative, too brash and shameless. "I'll blow up Vulcan, what do you think about THAT, Trekkies?"

Showing the Enterprise underwater in the "Into Darkness" trailer, what the hell is that about? He's doing it again, just taunting us. He knows we'll hate it, and he's saying "suck it, the last one grossed $257,730,019, fanboys."

So yeah, that attitude is annoying.

Beyond that, I believe Star Trek is merely an okay, overblown, braindead summer blockbuster like a dozen others. A thrill ride to take, say "that was cool" and immediately forget.

It's probably not worth complaining about, even.

k
 
I have always thought we were seeing the Gold Key Comics brought to life complete with the 2 piece uniform shirt and equipment belts worn over the shirt:

Frame_10_3_Big.jpg


Frame_10_4_Big.jpg





I wonder if this will eventually show up in the New Trek universe:

tickletrek.jpg
 
Last edited:
I have always thought we were seeing the Gold Key Comics brought to life complete with the 2 piece uniform shirt and equipment belts worn over the shirt

Yeah that's what I meant. It's as though the intention is to reference the average person's half-remembered childhood memories of having seen the toys and comic books, but not the show itself.

trek09-vs-mego.jpg



Check out Pine with his Mego ascot. :lol

kirk-as-mego-figure.jpg


Actually, you know what, I do really like the two-part uniform top in the movies. For one, they really did wear black undershirts on TOS, tho they were short sleeved. For two, McCoy set the precedent with his surgical tunic over black undershirt look.

The insignia is metal (which I also don't mind) but it's silver like on the Mego figures. The rank bands at the wrists are solid bands like on the Mego.

I wish they hadn't put the delta-shield repeating pattern into the fabric like every other superhero movie these days, but oh well. It's far too "cute".

k
 
I have always thought we were seeing the Gold Key Comics brought to life complete with the 2 piece uniform shirt and equipment belts worn over the shirt:

They did wear the belts over the shirt from time to time in TOS but they didn't look as much like the Gold Key versions.
Belt_zps651e027e.jpg

Belts_zps4a6d2778.jpg
 
Last edited:
Well to be fair Vulcan had one hell of a moon in TMP.

If all they had done was give Vulcan a moon, it would have been a cute continuity error.

But to give Vulcan a moon, to inexplicably call it "Delta Vega", to COINCIDENTALLY maroon Spock, Kirk AND Scotty there, and to force Spock to watch Vulcan's destruction from that vantage point...

Eventually one's head must explode.

k
 
Bull****. :darnkids

0g or 1g, a ship would tear itself apart if suddenly accelerated to thousands of times the speed of light. That's what the 'structural integrity field' and 'inertial dampeners' are for. He's just making up **** as they go along to try to make up for a **** poor movie.


Dang, why didn't I think of that?! Along with all those writers and producers and creative consultants? I guess some folks are just smarter than the average bear. Gene must be rolling in his grave.... :facepalm :rolleyes

While we're on the subject of rocket science, please enlighten us on how exactly millions of human atoms can be scattered and re-assembled while making funny lights and sounds.
 
Last edited:
I don't think the ship should have been changed for the new Trek ONE SINGLE BIT; not one nacelle, not one interior knob!!! No need to enhance all the techie stuff and special effects 3D holographic stuff…that sh-t doesn’t really lend anything to a storyline and only impresses people with no imagination. If it had replicated the EXACT ship from TOS, the audience would have been given a sense of continuity that is lacking at the present.

Moviemakers sorely underestimate their audience’s ability to unconsciously compensate for believability, as everyone already knows you suspend your disbelief for Sci-fi/fantasy anyway. We would have understood that tech and fashion trends were that style at that time, and it would not have diminished the original series OR altered a good storyline. The characters would have engaged us, and the plot, not just the special effects. It would have been trend-setting, it would have been consistent, and it would have been a tribute to all that went before. Sometimes LESS IS MORE!!!.
 
If all they had done was give Vulcan a moon, it would have been a cute continuity error.

But to give Vulcan a moon, to inexplicably call it "Delta Vega", to COINCIDENTALLY maroon Spock, Kirk AND Scotty there, and to force Spock to watch Vulcan's destruction from that vantage point...

Eventually one's head must explode.

k

I agree completely. The writing is totally lazy and some of the production design (or lack of) is pathetic.

If they had kept with continuity the explosion of Vulcan would have shifted the Delta Vega orbit and everything would be laid to waste. Khaaaaaaaaan...
 
It proves that professional designers that worked on previous Star Trek films, who DID in fact spend a lot of time thinking about the design of the Enterprise, agree that the ship that made it to the screen has got things wrong with it. Both from a pure consistency-of design standpoint, and also from a canon standpoint.

k


Sorry, there is no "right or wrong" when it comes to art and design theres just just a matter if opinion. Art is subjective.

I should also know this considering I've done plenty of concept designs for games, commercials and films.
 
Sorry, there is no "right or wrong" when it comes to art and design theres just just a matter if opinion. Art is subjective.

Very clever, you almost had me. But movie making is not purely art. :lol

Go back and read how Matt Jefferies and Gene Roddenberry struggled to define the design of the original Enterprise. Go back and see how, in the mid-1970s, the Enterprise was re-designed for a possible TV show, and then the movies. Look at how the 1701-D was conceived for Next Generation.

There may not be "right and wrong", but there is intentional vs arbitrary. There is style vs function. There is "it looks like it does something" vs "it just looks cool."

The process should be more than just subjective, at least if you care about more than just the surface appearance of things. And I happen to.

k
 
The implication of many vehement JJ-detractors, as evidenced from the dozens of previous (and future) posts, is that if you buy into the JJ-false-Trek and you don't think the movie is horrific nonsense, then you're a moron; or at least just a little bit stupid.
 
This thread is more than 10 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top