Star Trek Into Darkness (Pre-release)

Oh, and this one's for you Larry. Your idea of Transporter immortality was actually the plot line for a fairly recent Star Trek comic IDW published called "Star Trek: Leonard McCoy Frontier Doctor". In it, there is a race of aliens called the Tarseans who wear special headbands whenever they use a transporter. When they use the transporters, they literally reset themselves to a previous state when they first used them. The only catch that the Tarseans saw was that if you didn't wear those special headbands, reverting back will also wipe your mind of any memory that you accumulated after using the transporter for the first time.

McCoy also discovered another problem with this method of immortality. The Tarseans are dying. Whenever their bodies are reset via the transporter, some "present" unliving cells get passed on into the "past" reset form. This doesn't happen when transporters are used in their normal fashion because you're not being reverted into anything outside of what you currently are. And since the Tarseans cannot reproduce, they know that this will eventually lead to the extinction of their race. Not bad for a non-canon book to explore the dangers of transporter technology.

So in the end, the Transporter is merely a tool that should have a lot of restrictions, and any violation of those restrictions should at least not happen often. When you introduce that Transwarp formula that gets rid of every transporter rule in the book with incredible ease, you're introducing an element to the franchise where there should be no reason at all not to continue to use it. Even Deep Space Nine was guilty of this when they introduced that rifle that could literally see and shoot through walls. An Vulcan used it to kill off many people without even being caught until that same rifle was used against him. Yes, a weapon that can see and shoot through walls and Federation has no tactical use for it during a war.

And one more example of not having transporters be the #1 problem solver in the universe.

what-your-scariest-movie-moment-ever-themotionpicture0276.jpg-77450d1323778149


*shivers*

Those screams still shake me.
 
Yes, a weapon that can see and shoot through walls and Federation has no tactical use for it during a war.

Except it was explained as being a prototype ("old school" projectile) weapon to be used in enviroments that rendered standard phasers useless (such as a dampening field).

The weapon never went into production because an improved phaser was developed first that could function in the aforementioned enviroments.

I'd have to watch the episode again, but I believe the reason it was capable of shooting through walls is that the bullet was instantly beamed into the room the shooter was aiming for. This was a modification (adding a miniature transporter to the weapon's muzzle) done by the assassin and not a part of the weapon's original functions.


So at the very least there was an explanation as to why the weapon was never used in the war.


Kevin
 
Last edited:
I'd have to watch the episode again, but I believe the reason it was capable of shooting through walls is that the bullet was instantly beamed into the room the shooter was aiming for. This was a modification (adding a miniature transporter to the weapon's muzzle) done by the assassin and not a part of the weapon's original functions.

It's just one of those writing traits that have plagued Star Trek writers and still manages to creep it's way into Trek09 with it's sequel already paving the way for leaving out Transwarp Beaming. We cannot use this technology, because it works. I cannot use this gun, it's locked and loaded. I cannot use this spear, It's too pointy. I cannot wear this armor, it protects me too much. Why would you want to use a working light when it's not bright enough in here? Why would anyone want to put their hand on a hand rail*?

*ACTUAL STAR TREK EXCHANGE

What fun fruit roll up will they roll up with next?
 
I think the problem there is that these writers know they're writing stories that won't be considered canon, so they're free to do whatever they want since there are no consequences. I think if they had the burden of making their stories a part of Trek canon they would treat this material with a lot more care.

That was kind of the issue with TAS. No one thought there would ever be a live action Star Trek again. In fact, the concept of canon didn't really exist in those days.

If an animated series were made today, it could be considered canon from the get-go, thus making it so.

However, does canon even matter anymore, since we can just go back and reboot the timeline every couple of years anyway?

Not as silly as a world that despite having no Earth influence at all, seems to have perfectly recreated not only the constitution of the United States, the pledge of allegience, but also the American flag. Or that one episode where women are clearly not allowed to have the rank of Captain (That one seems to carry over to Trek09). I guess terrible episodes that Gene himself wrote get the pass where good episodes in the animated series get the boot. I would watch any animated episode over those two.

And don't diss Robert April.

Actually, as terrible an episode as Turnabout was, that line does not exist in it. It may be implied, but since we've already seen a female first officer that commanded the Enterprise in Pike's absence one can infer it differently. Lester could have easily meant that the life of a Starship captain doesn't allow for a real relationship (as she and Kirk used to date). It's quite obvious that Kirk's relationships all seemed to fail because A. They died and B. He was married to his ship... he dedicated to his life to the service and any woman he was with would always come in second.

Lester herself hated her own womanhood but she probably didn't get a command because she was out of her freaking mind. I can't imagine anyone giving a command to the likes of that woman.

This is the same woman that started ordering executions for people on the ship while in Kirk's body... dispite the fact that there was only one death penalty on the books and I'm pretty sure it was really more of an idle threat on the part of Starfleet to put it there anyway.

Although, I'm sure the intent of the writers was to be sexist, the line is never actually spoken. Intent is not canon (and everything else on screen conflicts with the idea that Starfleet is sexist... minus maybe the dresses) :p

Roddenberry said the Robert April part was true :D

Except it was explained as being a prototype ("old school" projectile) weapon to be used in enviroments that rendered standard phasers useless (such as a dampening field).

The weapon never went into production because an improved phaser was developed first that could function in the aforementioned enviroments.

I'd have to watch the episode again, but I believe the reason it was capable of shooting through walls is that the bullet was instantly beamed into the room the shooter was aiming for. This was a modification (adding a miniature transporter to the weapon's muzzle) done by the assassin and not a part of the weapon's original functions.


So at the very least there was an explanation as to why the weapon was never used in the war.


Kevin

Yeah. Not exactly a miracle weapon. Great for assassinations… not so great for war. It’s more like a sniper rifle. It takes entirely too much time and precision. Plus a phaser could cut through a bulkhead… but it’s also easily detected. The weapon in question used a micro-transporter and a tritanium bullet so small that it didn’t leave enough of a trace to be detected.

And Starfleet doesn't normally do assassinations... Usually :unsure
 
Lester herself hated her own womanhood but she probably didn't get a command because she was out of her freaking mind. I can't imagine anyone giving a command to the likes of that woman.

Well I don't believe that to be the case. After all, Janeway got to be Captain and look how insane she is. And you gotta love a woman who hates her womanhood so much that when she's finally in the body of a man, she still files her nails!

But as I've said again and again with Trek09, the original series is by and large a product of it's time and I wish that those products didn't carry over into the new movie. For a series that builds itself on being having an optimistic view on the future, it certainly didn't leave any hints that women could be Captains. It wasn't until Star Trek IV that we were finally able to see one, and that was after Gene Roddenberry left the producer's chair.
 
Well, you can't have all things all at once.

+ if it isn't there already. Make it part of the story. Have the women fight for that right, right there on screen and succeed. Have the confrontation and see how it goes.
 
Just yeaterday a group of us who were founding members of a Star Trek club that was formed in 1971, got together for a little mini-reunion.

All people who KNOW Star Trek.

Out of about 25 people only one didn't like AbramsTrek.

You folks, can post your three year old jokes and lenses flares all day, but I think that's a fine endorsement.

I liked the show too, but I think the lenses flare joke was pretty funny. If for no other reason than because they go on about the lense flaring in the commentary on the dvd.
 
Not a Sherlock viewer so this news means nothing to me, but figured there would be interested parties here:
Cumberbatch to play villain in 'Star Trek 2' - Entertainment News, Film News, Media - Variety

On the heels of his well-received turns in "War Horse" and "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy," Brit thesp Benedict Cumberbatch has been tapped to play the villain in J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek 2."

Cumberbatch landed the role that Edgar Ramirez had auditioned for last month.

Cumberbatch joins fellow Brit newcomers Noel Clarke and Alice Eve, as well as Peter Weller.

So, not Khan.
 
According to that article...Paramount had no comment about the casting. He could play anyone, not necessarily a villain. He looks like a Vulcan to me, or maybe he is playing a Horta.
 
Well if you give any weight to the original article released they did say...
The villain will be Harry Mudd, Trelane, or Gary Mitchel. He is too skinny to be a good Mudd. My bet is Trelane.
 
Of course they are. It's the easiest way to make bank.


This. They want to retell old stories without being bound by continuity, basically. That's why they rebooted. You can revisit anything that was touched before, but you can stick in fresh faces, new f/x, and not be bound by 1960s design concepts or the show's prior continuity. As a marketing move, it's pretty savvy, really.
 
Indeed. The names remain the same but the stories can be completely new.

I'm looking forward to the new film! I don't even care if they keep the Enterprise looking the way it does now... Well... I wouldn't mind streamlining the nacelles a wee bit. :lol


Kevin
 
I can see Cumberbatch playing a Vulcan. Heck, he would have made a GREAT Spock.
Anyone who has not seen Cumberbatch on on Sherlock, you should at least take some time to watch some clips of him on YouTube. He is one of the best actors on TV IMHO.
 
its been in all the major newspapers here in the UK that he has signed on to play the main villain, its also been stated that a special shooting schedule has been tentatively agreed to give him the chance to film Trek 2 whilst fulfilling his commitments to the Hobbit. Personally I think it could be a great piece of casting, he is a fine actor
 
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