nickytea
Master Member
Someone please cut the Into Darkness trailer to this.
Star Trek Into Darkness (Pre-release)
- Thread starter Dave Porter
- Start date
Someone please cut the Into Darkness trailer to this.
What I've been discussing all stems from the fact that everyone is calling Star Trek Into Darkness a full fledged action film, and I discuss how Star Trek doesn't always need action to tell a good story. When I bring up that TWOK hardly has any action in it, I back that up by giving examples on how the film spends a good chunk of it's running time dealing with the themes of life, death, old vs new ect. Every scene fits perfectly in place and doesn't waste it's time with gratuitous material that doesn't add anything to the overall film. The eel leaving Chekov's ear is not gratuitous because it was set up earlier in the film by showing the eel entering his ear near the start of the film. Chekov spends most of his screen time under Khan's control and when the cause of it finally leaves his body, you argue that there's no reason for it to exist. Just because it makes you squirm doesn't make it meaningless.
And what you seem incapable of comprehending is that TWOK was considered and action/adventure film when it was released. Compared to a more modern film it may seem to be paced more leisurely, but this is a statement of fact, not conjecture. You seem to be challenged by the facts.
SSgt Burton
Sr Member
There you go again. :rolleyes
I didn't say that at all. Go back and actually read my posts. I said it was gratuitous, not meaningless.
This again is where you (as usual) substitute and change the argument at hand to fit your response.
You said nothing in Trek II was gratuitous. I said the close up of the eel was.
But rather than trying to explain that the eel scene was "not" gratuitous (which you can't), you go and argue the "merits" of the scene which has nothing to do with what what being argued: gratuity in Trek II. You purposely change the argument to suit your need to "win."
This is the classic response of a straw man argument, in which you insert a new position and then refute it.
I'm not 100% sure anymore if you are able to comprehend the difference. Whether you are truly doing the straw man thing on purpose, or genuinely can't understand the questions at hand. However I'm still leaning toward your crutch of the straw man fallacy- you've been doing it since page 18.
Kevin
Last edited:
Burton, why do you even care at this point? If you honestly believe my arguments have no ground, why waste your time talking about them? Maybe you're the one trying to win since all I want to do is talk about Star Trek movies and all you want to do is call me out in front of the whole thread about details that don't reflect the whole picture. And what exactly would I 'win" if that was even possible? I'm simply someone who has an opinion about movies. Instead of following up the points in the discussion I've made, you choose to focus on one minor point and make a huge deal out of it. I mean, out of all the material I've written about Star Trek II in this thread, does that gratuitous bit really come off as the number one thing I care about? It's certainly one of many things I care about because TWOK doesn't waste it's time with the audience or with it's story. I bring that up in conjunction with JJ's first Trek movie because that's one of the key issues I have with his take on Star Trek. That's all.
There are no winners here. Only folks with an opinion. If you want to go on again about how I "change my argument" or how much of a "straw man" I am, don't. It's easier and more effective if you just ignore me. I'm just going to continue to talk about all things Star Trek.
Now, for anyone who's seen the film,
does Khan really beam himself all the way from Earth to Qo'nos during his assult on the Starfleet War Room?
nickytea
Master Member
It is implied, however using a secret experimental device developed by Section 31 from Scotty's equation. It plays into overarching themes of manipulation and weaponization.
SSgt Burton
Sr Member
Jeyl- you want a serious answer? Here’s the deal:
You may have had some interesting insights about the Trek franchise at one time, however these have all but been forgotten by your own hand.
We have come to know you as a person with a negative opinion of Gene Roddenberry, of the series he was directly responsible for (TOS,TNG), of JJ Abrams and the direction he has taken Trek in.
When arguments arise you either try to win by deflecting the original question, playing the martyr card, using baiting tactics, deliberately twisting other’s words, accusing others of the tactics you routinely employ, and when all else fails, resorting to absurd statements in an attempt to obfuscate the fact that you haven’t addressed what the argument was about in the first place.
You'll probably ask for examples. Since I have a life and don’t have the desire to sift through over 100 pages, I’ll just say re-read the thread. They are all there.
Whenever the opportunity arises you treat us to your malicious (mis)interpretation of...
The Picard/Hamlet speech
The Archer/Prime Directive dilemma
The little girl in the pink dress
The fact that Picard is French
The thinly veiled protests of misogyny in Trek
We’ve been subjected to this vitriol so many times ad nauseam that we cannot take it anymore. Especially the martyr “I’m just a fan with an opinion” “poor me” justification for your never ending negativity.
You NEVER listen to counter arguments, despite the answers staring you in the face. There is no room for your opinion being changed with you. You however feel it is your duty to change all of our opinions to mesh with your own. And if not, to at least continually trumpet your opinions to us until we are left with no alternative but to stick our fingers in our ears going LA-LA-LA-I-AM-NOT-LIS-TEN-ING.
We’ve grown tired of arguing with someone who does not read the reply itself, but rather just waits for ANY response you feels is directed at you in order to continue the vitriol.
I actually tried to put you on ignore before. However it can be difficult, because the hope is there that just this one time you will have a response that actually displays a hint of malleability and not about continuing to subject us to your unmoving “opinion.” However time and time again you have proved you are just here to in some perverted way be proud of the “work” you are doing.
I believe that you think you are fighting the good fight, or that it is a case of “one against many”, the classic David and Goliath struggle blah blah blah. So you “can’t” stop replying because it will mean surrendering to the majority or that you will be silenced.
The irony is that none of desire to “silence” you. We’re just sick of the negative bellyaching. Since this is ALL you do in Trek threads, then if the choice is “If you have nothing nice to say...” your choice will have to be to keep quiet. In other words I don’t believe you can change. I do believe you have tried occasionally, but old habits die hard and it didn’t take long for the venom to resurface.
How about this- how about you be the bigger man and let it go once and for all? Put ME on ignore.
Kevin
For all the praise that JJ gets for not using technobabble in his movies, the inherent problem still seems to be there. Story wise, technobabble is a solution that writers use when they can't think of a creative or organic way for our characters to overcome a challenge. The difference between this Star Trek and it's previous incarnations is that the new Trek doesn't justify it's solutions with techno jargon, scientific words that make it sound like our characters know what they're doing, when it's really all just complete nonsense. How does a dismantled shuttlecraft even have enough power to transport two people lightyears across space onto a ship that's moving several times faster than the speed of light? Just an equation into the computer. How does an equation change all the properties needed to make the transporter work? I don't know, because they don't bother to explain it. If this was the original Trek universe, they'd probably say that Scotty managed to reconfigure the transporter domain to work like sub-space communications via quantum entanglements.
Granted, most will probably not care in the long run if the film has a decent story and good characters. How else are we able to like Star Trek with all of these contradictions? It still makes me ponder as to why technobabble gets such a bad rap when this new Star Trek gets away with pretty much the same thing. Can audiences of older Treks look passed technobabble as they look passed certain logical flaws in these new movies? Personally I couldn't stand all those "quick and easy" solutions that were littered throughout the last film, and it's looking to be the case with this one too. For me, It's not a question of following the rules of the previous Treks, but on just how effective or ineffective this universe is. If they have the power to do these things that the original incarnation couldn't, why aren't we seeing more cases of it? Why shouldn't beaming anywhere at any time and at any speed not be their first method? It's the same question I had with that DS9 rifle that could shoot through walls that Starfleet didn't end up using. The only answer I could find as to why they wouldn't use this super effect weapon was basically because "it worked".
nickytea
Master Member
For the praise he gets, I don't recall that being one of them. In fact, I remember their being quite a bit of flack vis-a-vis "Red Matter."
What part of
experimental device by a secret organization
It gets down to this: either you can accept what is portrayed as the means to a larger end (the actual intent of the movement of the story) or you will be disappointed. Despite the rabid desires of the fans for virtual reality escape, the definition of a universe has never been the ultimate aim of any incarnation of Star Trek. The setting, as in any great drama, is an external extrapolation of the internal needs of character and theme.
That being said, I think that this is one item which, in context, can actually survive that level of context-ignoring scrutiny.
Last edited:
The part where
all you need to do in order to make your transporter literally do anything is enter an equation into a computer. For something that was used to save the Federation, I find it hard to believe that it would all of a sudden become an experimental device used by a secret organization. The equation works, and Scotty was able to use it on the Enterprise. There's no reason why every ship in the Federation (let alone any ship in the galaxy that has a transporter) shouldn't have this transwarp equation.
Another element that I didn't bring up was the use of rules that Star Trek would use on it's own technology. One of the most relevant examples that dates back all the way to the first season of the original series was how transporters aren't able to beam through shields and they have a fairly limited range. Any time these rules were broken (like form "Relics"), they were called out on it. There's really nothing in this new Star Trek that wants to establish any kind of rules for it's own technology since they broke both of those rules with one equation. Did the film really have to resort to this kind of cheat when they could have, I don't know,
have Khan transport to a non-federation ship that's in orbit around Earth and warp away?
Zuiun
Sr Member
I'm not sure how things work in your reality, but I've never heard of ANY technology that, upon working correctly the first time, was immediately thought to be safe, beyond the experiment phase, and widely implemented.
Clearly, the transporter implementation did not work perfectly in the first JJTrek, as Scotty wound up inside the machinery. Granted, it was played for laughs in the film, but that doesn't change the fact that it was a pretty serious error. The equation may work in the general sense, but it obviously isn't perfect.
To jump from that to "There's no reason every ship in the Federation shouldn't have this transwarp equation" is pretty silly and irresponsible.
At the very least, the scientific community would want to test the technology and figure out how to tweak for better accuracy to prevent mishaps.
At the very most, the technology might be classified, possibly as part of a secret organization.
To jump from that to "There's no reason every ship in the Federation shouldn't have this transwarp equation" is pretty silly and irresponsible.
At the very least, the scientific community would want to test the technology and figure out how to tweak for better accuracy to prevent mishaps.
At the very most, the technology might be classified, possibly as part of a secret organization.
Last edited:
How does classifying an equation stop it from being used by people who aren't a part of this secret organization and who already understand it and have used it in other transporters? Scotty and Spock used the equation to save the Federation and they're just going to willingly not use it because someone says they can't? Regardless, it's the same stupid reasoning behind why the Federation didn't use that super effective rifle. We don't use it because it works.
Khan uses a transporter to go from Earth to Qo'nos, the Klingon homeworld. Unless the Klingon home world is Earth's moon, this method of travel was only made possible with the powers of the "Q" continuum. I think that has something to do with Star Trek Into Darkness.
Also, no need to drag me. I'll be seeing the film.
Zuiun
Sr Member
I doubt all of this requires spoiler tags, but you never know...
What part of "beamed into the middle of machinery" did you not understand? Or what part of that made you think it was ready for widespread use? You seem to be under the opinion that because it was used ONE TIME in a moment of DESPERATION that it's suddenly viable and safe technology.
It clearly isn't. Like I said, although being played for laughs in the film, Scotty very likely could have materialized in the middle of a bulkhead. Not a single thing in the events of Trek '09 indicates that the "equation" is ready for prime time.
And so what if both Scotty and Spock think it should be used? For one thing, Spock is driven by logic and Scotty was the one who nearly died from the imperfect nature of the equation. Barring any other factors, it stands to reason that both of them would agree this technology needs work before it's used on "every ship in the Federation." It may even be that although the equation works, current computer technology needs to be adapted for better calibration. Who knows?
But even if they felt it was safe, they are not in control of the Federation. Even if THEY think it should be used, if it's classified, it's classified. There are plenty of people here in the real world privileged to information they cannot talk about or do anything with because it's been classified. That isn't a stretch to accept.
The point being, there are logical reasons why this technology, despite being introduced, would not be in widespread use by the time of this second film (which takes place only roughly a year or so, from the info I've seen, after the events of the first film). But the fact that it *does* exist, would make it appealing to covert organizations -- despite the inherent risks in it -- and that is also not a stretch to accept.
It clearly isn't. Like I said, although being played for laughs in the film, Scotty very likely could have materialized in the middle of a bulkhead. Not a single thing in the events of Trek '09 indicates that the "equation" is ready for prime time.
And so what if both Scotty and Spock think it should be used? For one thing, Spock is driven by logic and Scotty was the one who nearly died from the imperfect nature of the equation. Barring any other factors, it stands to reason that both of them would agree this technology needs work before it's used on "every ship in the Federation." It may even be that although the equation works, current computer technology needs to be adapted for better calibration. Who knows?
But even if they felt it was safe, they are not in control of the Federation. Even if THEY think it should be used, if it's classified, it's classified. There are plenty of people here in the real world privileged to information they cannot talk about or do anything with because it's been classified. That isn't a stretch to accept.
The point being, there are logical reasons why this technology, despite being introduced, would not be in widespread use by the time of this second film (which takes place only roughly a year or so, from the info I've seen, after the events of the first film). But the fact that it *does* exist, would make it appealing to covert organizations -- despite the inherent risks in it -- and that is also not a stretch to accept.
One time? Didn't they use it to beam from Saturn to the Narada orbiting Earth? If the Transporter always had that kind of range, why did Spock order the Enterprise to remain in orbit while he beamed down to rescue his parents and the Vulcan council? Couldn't they have beamed him and everyone else out from a much safer distance away from the planet consuming black hole?
Riceball
Master Member
Simple, dramatic license. Sure, they could have and probably should have simply just used the transporter but it makes for a much more dramatic scene for Spock to beam to rescue his parents instead. This happens in movies all the time and I'm sure that it's happened in some of your favorite movies as well. As for an in universe explanation, it could be that Spock, being only half Vulcan, let his emotions get the better of him so he beamed down to Vulcan to rescue his parents because he wasn't thinking logically. Alternately, he could have been unaware of the fact that the transporter has a trans-system range or maybe standard Federation transporters.
Zuiun
Sr Member
I don't recall that they made it clear what they did to transport to the Narada. I assumed it was the standard transporter, but since it's been awhile since I saw the film, I admit I could be wrong about that.
But let's assume they did use Scotty's formula. We are still talking about a 50% failure rate in accuracy. And you are upset that the technology isn't in widespread use a year later in the events of the sequel?
Or you refuse to believe that the formula could have been confiscated by a covert organization in Starfleet that might not have any qualms about using it regardless of any accuracy problems?
Lost21stJedi
Well-Known Member
I'm confused. Didn't this happen in the movie before Spock found out about that particular transporter technology? Unless you are referring to Prime Spock, who was already banished by Nero and no where near a transporter at the time Vulcan was destroyed.
Similar threads
