Doesn't even make sense.
Star Trek Into Darkness (Post-release)
- Thread starter Vivek
- Start date
Doesn't even make sense.
Never thought of it that way. Can you tell I'm more of a reactionary personality?
Thanks for showing me another side.
greatwazoo42
Master Member
I'm glad to put you back on familiar ground then.
Never thought of it that way. Can you tell I'm more of a reactionary personality?
I'm happy to help.
SSgt Burton
Sr Member
About the use of the transporter in the climax with Khan- if Khan was moving too quickly for a transporter lock, perhaps they should have had Chekov handle the transporter controls again ("I CAN DO ZIS! I CAN DO ZIS!").
Don't get me wrong, I can still enjoy the movie while at the same time realize they are playing a little loose with their own established rules about the transporter. It just isn't a big deal.
You want a big deal?
Why didn't they beam the Genesis device off the Reliant into deep space like Redjac? Spock would not have had to die. :lol
Kevin
Don't get me wrong, I can still enjoy the movie while at the same time realize they are playing a little loose with their own established rules about the transporter. It just isn't a big deal.
You want a big deal?
Why didn't they beam the Genesis device off the Reliant into deep space like Redjac? Spock would not have had to die.
:lolKevin
greatwazoo42
Master Member
Why didn't they beam the Genesis device off the Reliant into deep space like Redjac? Spock would not have had to die.
Good point!
Mola Rob
Sr Member
Actually I said walking around the bridge not running. Get it straight.:lol
I just figured that since Chekov could lock onto Kirk and Sulu in free fall they could probably snatch Khan from Kronos and since the argument was brought up he was moving around came up I pointed out so was Marcus. That led to the comment about Spock's mother...
There is no consistency. We can argue about it and throw in techno mumbo jumbo but the truth is they simply have the transporter act however the story calls for it to act in any given scene. Sometimes it does this, sometimes it does that, and sometimes they seem to forget they have it.
It's not terribly important but that kind of minutiae can detract from my enjoyment of a movie if it's so blatantly obvious they are not paying attention to their own rules.
Oh and none of this takes into account beaming Kirk and Scotty onto a ship traveling at warp probably far out of sensor range (no movement there at all) using the transporter system on a rickety shuttle or Spock getting beamed off the Vulcan vomit comet before it collides with the Narada.
If the shuttles had transporters why didn't they beam Kirk's father off the Kelvin before the collision?
Why does Spock senior assume the shuttles have transporters? They didn't in the original series and that took place at a later date.
Last edited:
Zuiun
Sr Member
You want a big deal?
Why didn't they beam the Genesis device off the Reliant into deep space like Redjac? Spock would not have had to die.
If the sensors were off line while in the nebula to the point where they had to rely on visuals to fire on each other, I'm assuming there is no way they could have gotten a sensor lock on the Genesis device to beam it off Reliant.
But then that raises the question of how their sensors could have detected the Genesis wave...
There's an atomic reaction once it's armed so they couldn't beam it???
Zuiun
Sr Member
I can accept the device's reaction being strong enough to detect through the nebula's interference.
I can also accept there still being enough interference to make it impossible to obtain enough of a precise lock for transporters - detecting a reaction strong enough to break through interference and reach the Enterprise is different from the Enterprise's sensors effectively locking onto a man-sized object.
The film was pretty clear in establishing that the nebula was going render a lot of ship systems inoperable -- that was made a fairly dramatic plot point. So I'm ok with the notion that transporting the device really wasn't a viable option.
DARTH SABER
Master Member
About the use of the transporter in the climax with Khan- if Khan was moving too quickly for a transporter lock, perhaps they should have had Chekov handle the transporter controls again ("I CAN DO ZIS! I CAN DO ZIS!").
Don't get me wrong, I can still enjoy the movie while at the same time realize they are playing a little loose with their own established rules about the transporter. It just isn't a big deal.
You want a big deal?
Why didn't they beam the Genesis device off the Reliant into deep space like Redjac? Spock would not have had to die.
Kevin
i can see the logic in chekov being able to lock on to kirk and sulu but not spoocks mom. kirk and sulu were falling for quite awhile, plenty of time for chekov to do his thing.
spocks mom on the other hand probably fell a couple of hundred feet..hardly time to react.
Riceball
Master Member
The reason for why they couldn't beam Spock out of the volcano unless they had direct line of sight was mentioned in the movie, it had something to do interference from the volcano or the atmosphere which prevented them from being able to beam Spock out from where they were.
RougeAvenger81
Well-Known Member
My rebutle to that would be in Star Trek, Chekov had to lock on and beam up Sulu and Kirk falling to Vulcan at terminal velocity and spinning in a matter of 5-7 seconds. Did it just fine.
- - - Updated - - -
That being said, if the volcano would interfere that much then how is it possible to transport planet to planet or galaxy to galaxy or even a ship during warp with no issue. Just a thought.
jlee562
Sr Member
There's a little more to that article than the headline would have one believe...
Zombie_61
Master Member
In my defense, I only said they explained it; I never said their explanation made sense or that it maintained continuity.
mynameschris
Well-Known Member
He didnt mention the transporter on screen, I would think Spock likely just asked "do you have a transporter".
In the movie the only shuttle we see with one is Scotty's and I wouldnt be suprised if its either an uncommon variant or one he installed himself while tinkering as its right in the middle of the seating area.
The shuttles are also much bigger (which has been pointed out a fair few times in the last 4 years) and make much more sense than the smaller ones from the older universe, there was even the mention of a toilet in the first film. I think they nailed the look (at least for me) with the version from Into Darkness as it manages to mix the classic look of the TOS shuttle in the reboot style perfectly... Now if only one of them was called Galileo 5 or 7! (maybe next time *hint* film makers if your reading this *hint hint*)
There likely was no transporters on shuttles at that time, as you said in TOS they didnt have transporters and this is even earlier than TOS.
Lesson #822: Don't listen to Damon LIndelof.
kialna
Sr Member
I loved it! Although I felt that they didn't need to bring this out in 3D. Most of the scenes weren't done for 3D, which resulted in the idea of watching a 2D movie with 3D glasses. Especially the scene where kirk and khan fly through space, I had expected more 3D elements. It's just that I couldn't choose for 2D. I don't care a lot about 3D, but if you use it, use it well. Which was not the case.
Further: I loved it! Probably one of the better birthday presents. Too bad it went sour when I discovered my bike was stolen.
Further: I loved it! Probably one of the better birthday presents. Too bad it went sour when I discovered my bike was stolen.
Demetrios2177
Well-Known Member
Just seen it. what a terrible film. J.J. Abrams' approach to Star Trek is best described by a quote from "A Fish called Wanda":
Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it!
Res ipsa loquitur.
Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it!
Res ipsa loquitur.
Similar threads
