Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

"Star Trek Into Darkness" questions/comments

SPOILER ALERT, obviously, so questions & comments inside.

by Anonymousreply 11003/01/2015

Okay: first, the blond chick is the same one it turned out Kirk fathered a kid with in the original "Wrath of Khan," right? I'm assuming they're sticking to "real time" in Trek canon, so the events in the new film take place before the beginning of the ST:TOS "five-year mission" (roughly 20 years before "Wrath of Khan"), so I'm guessing she'll be his love interest in the next one. At the end of the movie, did they christen a new Enterprise or simply rechristen the old one, which I assume was salvageable? I'm guessing the latter, particularly since the interior looked no different and it didn't have any NCC-1701-A exterior badging.

Finally, isn't "trans-warp" what the Borg used in TNG and later series to get around faster than anyone else? I was surprised they introduced this element into the last film, since I didn't think the concept existed in TOS days. That said, I remember that Scotty somehow got caught in a temporal vortex and ended up on TNG 80 years later or whatever, so it's possible that Old Scotty would have known about trans-warp (via Picard's and Janeway's interactions with the Borg) and told Old Spock about it.

Btw I thought it was really clever to turn trans-warp into a huge plot point and have a sinister Starfleet admiral building a massive war ship on the down-low -- it reflected at least one alt-verse TNG ep I remember, and even bits of the second-to-last "Enterprise" episode as well. The question now is whether it's been abandoned as "too dangerous a technology for non-military use" or if it'll show up on the Enterprise in the next sequel ... which would really let them go where no one has gone before!

P.S. Gotta love the Tribble shout-out, particularly since it saved Kirk.

P.P.S. Also gotta love the "KHAAAAAAAAAN!!!" Spock outburst, mimicking Kirk's from the original.

P.P.P.S. Wasn't Khan supposed to be an Arab? Benedict Cumberbatch can play many things, but Middle Eastern isn't one of them...

by Anonymousreply 105/16/2013

One more thing re: Khan's back story, which apparently hasn't changed from the original 1967 Khan episode ... he was one of a group of genetically engineered "supermen" built for the "Eugenics War." The problem is this war took place, per TOS, in the 1990s, and obviously we now know the technology didn't exist 20 years ago -- even taking the most outlandish Area 51 kind of shit into account -- to genetically engineer these types of soldiers, let alone jettison them into deep space AND successfully cryofreeze them for 300 years (which btw is straight out of "Alien").

We *could* assume that the entire Trek timeline takes place in an alt-verse, except the opening credits for "Enterprise" rather clearly show the traditional history of American aviation, including Space Shuttle launches, plus there have been numerous mentions on the series and in the films throughout the years to actual 20th-century events (not to mention the fact that the entire third FILM takes place on 1980s Earth, *after* the first Space Shuttle had launched). Anyway, perhaps I'm harping too much on continuity...

by Anonymousreply 205/16/2013

A good review:

[bold]Star Trek Into Darkness Review: Small Time Fun[/bold]

Making a Star Trek movie must be hard. A movie like Star Trek Into Darkness has to simultaneously treat its source material with acknowledgement, if not respect, and make itself feel new and original. There are a lot of ways to do that, but JJ Abrams seemed to choose, “Just make it fun and figure the rest out.” He chose wisely.

(much more at link)

by Anonymousreply 305/16/2013

A not-so-good review:

[bold]Star Trek: Into Dumbness[/bold]

The new Star Trek movie isn't a terrible film. Star Trek Into Darkness has some bravura action scenes, and some brilliant comic bits. But it's also aggressively, tragically stupid. It's not even a great popcorn film, because it fails to deliver on its own promises. And it's not half as good as J.J. Abrams' first Star Trek.

(much more at the link)

by Anonymousreply 405/16/2013

R1 ricardo montalban wasn't Arab either.

by Anonymousreply 505/16/2013

Apparently, the studio considered Benicio Del Toro, Damien Bichir, Eduardo Ramirez and other Hispanic actors to play Khan (in keeping with the casting of Ricardo Montalban), why they veered to an ugly Englishman is anybody's guess.

by Anonymousreply 605/18/2013

As for the movie itself, did anybody else think it kinda sucked? I was very disappointed, it played like a generic sci-fi action film created to drive video games.

And though it had a little bit of character interaction, it was not enough for me (poor Anton Yelchin, reduced to yelling all his lines in front of steam).

by Anonymousreply 705/18/2013

A better movie than Prometheus (same writer) with slightly less plot holes. They could have kept the villain as another defrosted superman from the eugenics war rather than Khan. After the big reveal, they have to follow the beats of the Wrath of Khan and it becomes noisier, predictable, and less coherent.

by Anonymousreply 805/18/2013

I enjoyed it, but it could have been much better. It focused more on one action scene followed by another, rather that developing much of a storyline.

This review sums up my opinion pretty well.

by Anonymousreply 905/18/2013

Was anyone else disappointed by the kind of movie it was? I guess what I mean it's Star Trek, I want to see them actually GO somewhere. It was just another very Earth centric plot. I wanted more action-adventure, emphasis on adventure.

by Anonymousreply 1005/18/2013

I had fun at "Into Darkness" but in retrospect much of it felt like overblown fan-fiction. I still don't quite understand what Khan's old crew was doing in those torpedoes. (Sleeping I guess.) The "magic blood" dues-ex-machina was straight from Battlestar Galactica.

Like many recent Hollywood block-busters there was so much fast cutting and frenetic pacing that I often couldn't tell who exactly was getting their ass kicked at any given moment.

I also agree with the NY Times that the final Spock/Khan battle on a series of conveniently moving vehicles was just hack-work, a phoned in action sequence I've seen dozens of times.

by Anonymousreply 1105/18/2013

I enjoyed it. They did try to squeeze a lot into a 2-hour film and they should've either scaled it back or made it longer.

It was also visually stunning.

by Anonymousreply 1205/18/2013

Keep in mind they can re-write trek history as they see fit. Thanks to the first movie and the romulans blowing up vulcan and killing kirks dad..the whole history of ST:TOS is up for grabs. In fact some trekkers (or trekkies) treat JJ's Trek as and alternate time line trek or ST:TALT.

So the whole trans warp/did they have that didn't they have that thing is all up in the air now. Spock in the first movie showed Scotty transwarp theory because he (scotty) would invent it. I would assume as a natural progression that the technology would be improved upon.

I think what would really be interesting is if they re did ST:TNG using the now alternate trek universe since star fleet is so much more military driven in the alternate than the explore new words/find new civilizations blah blah blah...they could do that as a tv show.

Either way JJ is tied up with Star Wars now.

by Anonymousreply 1305/18/2013

I liked it a lot, though I agree multiple parts of it were hackneyed (particularly the last 30 minutes). Of *course* it had to have some fanboy shoutouts -- the first "Trek" certainly did -- but it had multiple surprises I didn't even remotely see coming, e.g. the evil Starfleet admiral with a ship twice as large as the Enterprise that can travel at fucking TRANSWARP velocity! (We will for the moment leave out the implausibility of him being able to manage the development of such a gargantuan project without anyone's knowledge, and apparently in under a year's time, the length since the events in the first film.) Once again, the dialogue between Kirk, Spock and Uhura was one of the highlights, and Zach Quinto managed to get all the best jokes even as "the straight guy" (love that double entendre!). The whole Spock/Khan fight was simply *beyond* stupid, not to mention entirely unnecessary; why couldn't Khan just have died when the ship crashed? (and then Bones could've saved more of his blood originally instead of using it all on a tribble in order to save Kirk)

I'd say the best action sequence was the Kirk/Khan slingshot through space through the debris field, even though it was partially cribbed (and even acknowledged on camera as such) from the first film. (If we're being *really* technical, the whole "navigating a treacherous debris field" bit originated with "The Empire Strikes Back," actually.)

One plot hole: Old Spock was somehow reticent to give New Spock any info about his future, even though the last film entirely obliterated the old timeline, and ALSO even though he didn't hesitate to give Scotty the transwarp formula in the first film?? (nor did he mind New Spock using his vehicle and its magic red antimatter to kill the bad guy) And how many thousands (or millions) will end up dying because of war with the Klingons, which Spock could arguably prevent? (particularly since he was a fucking AMBASSADOR before going back through time - couldn't he just mind-meld with current Klingon overlords to show them what the future holds, even (presumably) in the new alt-verse)

by Anonymousreply 1405/18/2013

R13: Scotty didn't invent trans-warp. He invented the concept of moving a stationary object onto a ship moving at regular warp, USING trans-warp as a means.

Btw a new TNG with an alt timeline -- and, better yet, 21st-century FX instead of the dated '80s shit on the old show -- would be fucking AWESOME!

Finally, don't assume J.J. is limited to "Star Wars" alone now. Lucas managed to make the "Indiana Jones" trilogy while juggling the original "Star Wars" trilogy at the same time, though admittedly Spielberg helped.

by Anonymousreply 1505/18/2013

I liked it a lot. It was definitely way too summer blockestery for a Star Trek movie, but I could understand they were just trying to make money and at the end of the day I enjoyed the movie a lot so job well done.

It was definitely Chris Pine and Zach Quinto's movie and I was glad to see they could step up to the plate. Benedict Cumberbatch was amazing in a role that was underdeveloped but he killed everyone scene he was in.

by Anonymousreply 1605/18/2013

Ok, [R5], I'll bite. No, Ricardo Montalbán wasn't Indian. But the character he played was clearly meant to be perceived as such.

When all is said and done it boils down to this: The Star Trek franchise not only presents, but was specifically created to present, multiple opportunities for casting POC (and women) and thus presenting a diverse cast to the viewers.

Casting a white man as one of the most iconic POC characters in the franchise feels a bit weird to me. It certainly goes against the idea of showing as diverse a cast as possible.

by Anonymousreply 1705/18/2013

I thought it was beautifully made , the production values are stellar. To me the whole movie felt like a set up for the inevitable seque, so that last 45 minutes was really boring and tedious. I liked the dialogue and the sinister villains and weird random space people milling around. I also liked the depiction of SF in the future with Marin County having a city skyline, something that would be unthinkable to the "we live here to get away from you people" crowd that resides there presently.

by Anonymousreply 1805/19/2013

I loved the movie because it was simply fun to watch. Benedict and Chris and Zachary all did a great job as did everyone else involved. I left the theater feeling happy.

by Anonymousreply 1905/19/2013

Liked it a great deal. Spectacular work from Pine, Quinto, and Cumberbatch, and I thought the fusion of elements from "Space Seed" and TWoK were well-handled.

I actually gasped when they made two DS9 references.

And thank you everyone who suggested I see it at the Lincoln Square IMAX. First time I've ever thought the 3D added to the movie.

by Anonymousreply 2005/19/2013

I wonder if there are Borg anymore? I had always thought they could tie in the first star trek movie to the borg (voyager gets modified to collect, mergers with human - he goes off into space and creates the borg.

JJ was on Howard Stern and pretty much said his life is Star Wars now, that after ST he was going to take 6 months off with his family but they just shifted it to taking them all to England while they film star wars.

by Anonymousreply 2105/19/2013

I thought the first (reboot) one was epic, beginning with the death of Kirk's father and then the scene in the bar with Pike ("Now, your father was captain of a Starship for 12 minutes. He saved 800 lives, including your mother's and yours. I dare you to do better.") That was awe-inspiring... introducing all the characters--old friends with new faces!-- brilliant.

This one was less... less. That fight at the end was tedious, Chekov ran around with some goggles on his forehead, the woman who played the admiral's daughter/scientist was about as convincing as Denise Richards playing a nuclear physicist in that Bond film, the whole proton torpedo plot was clumsy.

The first movie was so great, this one was a let-down. It's not *bad*, it's just not great.

by Anonymousreply 2205/19/2013

Why was kirks father credited in the end. Did they cut a scene?

by Anonymousreply 2305/19/2013

Most of the movie was blatant fanboy pandering from an uncurious, uncreative huckster who has no original ideas of his own.

Regardless, the film worked as a remix of the past and I really liked it a lot. Just like the last one, it was a good movie, not just for hardcore fans. It's the only thing JJ Abrams has ever done right, primarily because the foundation is inherently strong and he can't do much damage to it by playing within it and remixing the tropes. When he has to do original work or less strong properties he falters. But Trek works for him.

by Anonymousreply 2405/19/2013

Benedict Cumberbatch is hot.

by Anonymousreply 2505/19/2013

I'm devastated that the film is underperforming at the box office.

I didn't love the film but I did admire the way that it pretzled its way back to the primary ethics of Star Trek.

For me the series has been too militarized for much too long. I also thought it had some important themes for our times.

But with soft box office it seems Trek is forever relagated to being Wars' weak little sister. Which is why Abrams 'treason' to the franchise is even more galling. Sigh.

Frankly, I found this film to be the least emotionally engaging of Abrams movies, but I'd rather have the big screen franchise aborted at this point than have to deal with the same kind of humiliating C picture budgets we endured throughout the '80s.

by Anonymousreply 2605/19/2013

I couldn't get anyone to come with me to see the film. Despite the good reviews, my circle of family and friends just consider the relaunch too much of a bastardization to be 'Star Trek'.

by Anonymousreply 2705/19/2013

Just got back from seeing it.

My initial reaction is "Well, I sure hope they got THAT out of their system."

Re-writing the classic Wrath of Kahn movie like this was almost painful to watch, to be honest. Predictable and hokey and in some places cheesy. It's like shitting on a classic.

What's the purpose of a "clean slate" (with the entire reboot and new timeline) if all you're doing to do is rehash variations on a theme from the old shows and movies?

The Star Trek fan in me was annoyed. The Summer Pop-Corn Movie fan in me was somewhat satisfied, though the plot holes (and stupidities) were kind of glaring. The physics major in me was very annoyed (and I suspend disbelief quite regularly for the other star treks... this one just really fucked up in so many places... "Cold Fusion" to stop a volcano? really? Do you even know what the fuck 'cold fusion' is?) Ugh.

I give it maybe a C+

Unlike "The Wrath of Kahn", which I've seen easily two dozen times, I have no intention of watching this movie again.

HOWEVER. If this movie were the launching point for a new series (they couldn't afford this cast or the effects, but still), it would be pretty awesome.

I just hope in the next movie they actually go somewhere no one has gone before, instead of re-treading well-worn history.

by Anonymousreply 2805/19/2013

What were the DS9 references? I must have missed them.

I liked the Star Trek 6 reference with the Klingon home world. They had Praxis right there above Kronos, breaking apart from the mining.

by Anonymousreply 2905/19/2013

My partner and I loved it, it was even better than the last one. Great awesome experience. My partner is hugely critical and a Star Trek fan so to hear him going on and one about how great it was made it even better for me. The music was very good.

by Anonymousreply 3005/19/2013

[quote]P.P.S. Also gotta love the "KHAAAAAAAAAN!!!" Spock outburst, mimicking Kirk's from the original.

Uh, no.

It was out of character for Spock. It was cheesy. It's where the balance between telling a good story and doing meta fanboy BS/wanking completely tipped to the latter, irretrievably, really.

by Anonymousreply 3105/19/2013

So why is it doing so badly at the box office? Isn't it still too early to tell?

I hope a third film gets made, in spite of all that could've been better in this one, I love Star Trek.

I knew they fucked up with hiding who the villain is for so long.

by Anonymousreply 3205/19/2013

Honestly, I think they should just do a 10 episode per year cable TV series, a la Walking Dead or Game of Thrones, using this movie as a launching pad into their five year mission. Commit to five seasons. Then be done with it.

by Anonymousreply 3305/19/2013

Also, they shouldn't have waited for JJ to direct and done the film earlier - not release it four fucking years after the success of the first one.

by Anonymousreply 3405/19/2013

The hats looked stupid.

And nobody seemed too bothered that half of San Francisco was utterly destroyed, presumably millions dead.

by Anonymousreply 3505/19/2013

loved the movie - seen it twice. its fan romp and the plays and twists vs original is nice. its just enough to reference but they do their own thing. i like the fact that its not a 100% recreation of the original

and cumberbatch rocked.

by Anonymousreply 3605/19/2013

IIRC, transwarp was first mentioned in Star Trek III, where the USS Excelsior was introduced. Scotty sabotaged it so the Enterprise could get away when Kirk and crew stole it from spacedock to go find Spock.

by Anonymousreply 3705/19/2013

Basically, in this timeline, a bunch of technologies have been accelerated by 20 or 30 years.... transwarp, direct beaming, dreadnaught-class starships, etc.

by Anonymousreply 3805/19/2013

I love both of the Abrams films, but I've got to say, aside from the Enterprise itself, the starship design sucks. The background starfleet ships are dull, and the dreadnought ship in the new film is worse than hideous, it's boring.

Mentioning Star Trek 3 reminded me how good the production design was in that film. The Excelsior, Grissom, Bird of Prey and Spacedock were all designed for that movie and became staples of the franchise for the next 20 years. There was nothing even approaching that level of design in this movie.

by Anonymousreply 3905/19/2013

There really seems to be two groups of people.

Those that love it.

And those that find it weak, frustrating, disappointing, or lame.

There doesn't seem to be much middle ground, and nobody seems to hate it at all.

by Anonymousreply 4005/19/2013

r21 I thought that too! I also thought of a less aggressive V'yger rescuing Captain Janeway and Voyager

by Anonymousreply 4105/19/2013

I would bonk Chris Pine for hours. Hot bottom. Two thumbs up.

by Anonymousreply 4205/19/2013

[quote]What were the DS9 references? I must have missed them.

Admiral Marcus said that the "archive" was actually Starfleet's black ops program Section 31.

Khan was hiding in Ketha Province on Qo'nos, where General Martok was from.

The ship they used to capture Khan was confiscated during the "Harcourt Mudd" incident. And Admiral Marcus had models of both Zephram Cochrane's Phoenix and the NX-01 on his desk.

And I'm sure Nichelle Nichols is thrilled Uhura finally got to show off her mastery of the Klingon language.

by Anonymousreply 4305/19/2013

Sometimes Pine photographs flawlessly, other times his complexion looks scarred, pitted...

by Anonymousreply 4405/19/2013

The mole below Pine's right ear seems to be pancaked over this round but still visible. Skin is less visibly acne scarred this time too. I could never figure out why actors are so quick to work out and diet but won't address the obvious like bad skin or teeth.

by Anonymousreply 4505/19/2013

I was too distracted by the constant use of the Getty museum as the star fleet building or whatever the heck it was supposed to be doubling for!

by Anonymousreply 4605/19/2013

I was just glad they replaced the brewery they used as the warp core with a particle accelerator at Lawrence Livermore National Lab.

by Anonymousreply 4705/19/2013

I saw a program on the History channel today before I saw the movie.

Sort of behind the scenes on the new movie and how plausible it was for all that stuff to actually happen.

It is pretty amazing that they let them film in that building. Is it a particle accelerator?

It looked really high-tech and dangerous. Everybody was wearing a hard-hat!!!

Didn't really care for the retread of that epic, emotional, gut-wrenching scene in Khan when Spock dies. Hands-against-the-glass and everything.!!!

I was confused as to where Scotty was and didn't realize he had gotten onboard that hidden ship.

There were several scenes that flat-out reminded me of Star Wars.

by Anonymousreply 4805/19/2013

[quote]It is pretty amazing that they let them film in that building. Is it a particle accelerator?

It's called the National Ignition Facility. It's used research about fusion. And also hydrogen bombs, but let's focus on the positive.

by Anonymousreply 4905/19/2013

The film really shouldn't work, but it does, mostly. The Trek films are the only ones of Abrams' cloying pop culture retread products that transcend his creative and intellectual laziness. He is however a great craftsman. And Trek needed him.

I still don't know who or what Scotty's little alien buddy is, but I just love him.

by Anonymousreply 5005/19/2013

I liked the movie very much...for all the reasons people have listed.

Beautiful visually of many sequences.

by Anonymousreply 5105/19/2013

Creatively and Intellectually lazy. That definitely describes this movie.


I'm glad that people are liking it because I want another one, but I was really disappointed. So many problems. It was more interested in providing slavish fan-service than telling a good story.

And the reason the whole "spock/kirk" ending thing didn't really work is because these characters barely know each other, and the audience barely knows them as well. In "The Wrath of Khan", the characters had been together for decades, and with the audience for even more decades. We were invested, and they were invested in each other. It came off cheap and cheesy to try and re-create those emotions with characters that barely know each other.

by Anonymousreply 5205/19/2013

Star Trek Into Darkness begins as an allegory of the so-called "War on Terror." Questions of exactly how far a society can go in pursuing those who attack it without compromising its own ethical integrity are prominent. It's not a subtle comparison, to be sure, but it serves the story well and generates a good deal of friction between members of the victimized society who want revenge and those who advocate maintaining the principles on which that society was founded. There's even an obvious reference to modern ethical dilemmas like the use of unmanned weapons to carry out the extrajudicial, targeted killing of terror suspects.

This premise bogs down somewhat about two-thirds of the way through the movie after following a rabbit track into very familiar territory for Star Trek fans. I won't say what that territory is specifically, but there's one major plot point that will have viewers familiar with the Trek universe gasping in surprise (unless you've already had the film spoiled for you or figured it out from one of the clumsily edited trailers). That major plot point in and of itself isn't a negative, exactly. It's not the choice I would have made as a writer, but I accepted it and moved on—no big deal.

Unfortunately, the writers weren't content to leave it alone. They go on to essentially copy-and-paste entire portions of earlier Star Trek material into the latter third of the movie, with what I'm sure was just enough modification to avoid having to pay the writers of that earlier material royalties on the new movie. The re-tread isn't executed poorly, and if it were fresh material, much of it would be compelling and emotional.

One of the most emotional moments of the movie—a great tragedy for our heroes—has much of its gravitas stolen from it by the fact that the mechanism by which its consequences will be circumvented is blatantly telegraphed to the audience not once but twice in earlier scenes.

I won't go so far as to say that the latter third of the movie turns this from a good film into a bad one; it doesn't. But it's disappointing that J.J. Abrams and company fell short of making what could have been a truly great Star Trek movie by jumping onto this odd track in the back half of the film.

From interviews I've seen with the primary writers (Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci, and Damon Lindelof), I'm choosing to believe that they honestly intended it to be an homage to the franchise and a treat for fans. I've even spoken to a few fans who thought it was just that, so there are other ways to look at it.

Finally, I have one remaining question about the writing in this movie: What is it with J.J. Abrams making people jump off of and/or onto things? Seriously, people in this movie are forever jumping off tall buildings, cliffs, or out into space. It's bananas.

by Anonymousreply 5305/21/2013

[quote]My partner and I loved it,

I'm so happy you have someone to validate you, but it isn't necessary to start your post this way.

by Anonymousreply 5405/21/2013


Jealous much????

Maybe I should have said, "I enjoyed the movie, and so did my loving, gorgeous, blatino husbear loverman."

Don't be such a cow, dude!

by Anonymousreply 5505/21/2013

[bold]Star Trek Into Darkness: The Spoiler FAQ[/bold]

After making a mere $84 million at the U.S. box office, Star Trek Into Darkness is considered by some to be a disappointment. Perhaps the problem is that it was a touch confusing. To help our readers better understand it, we've complied and answered these Frequently Asked Questions about the movie.

Maximum spoilers ahead...

[bold]How does the movie start?[/bold]

Well, with Kirk and Bones fucking with a planet of primitive aliens. They steal some kind of holy scroll, and then get chased through a red jungle.

[bold]Seems like kind of a dick move.[/bold]

Well, it’s not very clear, but ostensibly they’ve stolen the scroll to get chased, in order to draw the aliens away from a volcano that’s about to explode.

[bold]Okay, that seems reasonable.[/bold]

Except that 1) when the volcano erupts, it’s going to kill everybody on the planet, so it hardly matters where they are, and 2) Spock is getting dropped down into the volcano to set off a cold fusion bomb.

[bold]Wait, what?[/bold]

Yeah, he sets off the cold fusion bomb and all the lava freezes.

[bold]You know cold fusion isn’t actually cold, right? It’s only “cold” in the sense that opposed to regular fusion it’s not a bazillion degrees hot.[/bold]


[bold]And did you say Spock was in the volcano? Why the hell didn’t they just beam the bomb in there?[/bold]

Um, something about the planet’s magnetic field. Although they do beam Spock out of the volcano just a few minutes later, so…

[bold]And why did Spock have to go with the bomb to set it off? Are you telling me in the 23rd century that people don’t have a way to detonate bombs remotely? That’s stupid.[/bold]

Well —

[bold]And why the fuck is the Enterprise just carrying around a cold fusion suitcase bomb anyways?[/bold]

Look, you’re getting very upset, and this is just the first scene of the movie.

[bold]Okay, fine. What happens next?[/bold]

Well, Spock’s zipline breaks, so he’s stuck in the volcano, The Enterprise is underwater, so Kirk can’t ascend without the aliens seeing it, thus breaking the Prime Directiv —


The Enterprise is parked in the ocean.

[bold]That’s ridiculous. Even the ship designed to function in the vacuum of space could handle the pressures underwater — which I’m 99% sure it can’t — even if the thrusters could function underwater, which makes no sense — and even if the ship could survive flying out of the water without the insanely large surface area of the front part snapping off like a twig — why the fucking fuck did they park it underwater instead of just hanging out in space like they were supposed to?![/bold]

Because J.J. Abrams saw the Helicarrier scene from Avengers and got jealous, I guess.

[bold]Look, I know Star Trek is science fiction, but hasn’t Trek always at least nominally tried to get science right? Shouldn’t a Star Trek movie give the tiniest shit about such things?[/bold]

One might presume.


Let’s just move on. So Kirk rescues Spock, breaks the Prime Directive by showing themselves to the aliens, the aliens start worshipping the Enterprise, Spock sends a report to Starfleet on what happened, Kirk gets busted, Kirk is removed as Captain of the Enterprise.


Yeah. You know how the first movie was all about Kirk’s journey from a rebellious kid to a more mature leader of men?


Well, we’re doing that again!

[bold]I repeat, UGH.[/bold]

by Anonymousreply 5605/21/2013

bump for R56...

by Anonymousreply 5705/22/2013

I'm sorry, but that Q&A is why I fucking hate fanbois.

They can buy that a spaceship can travel at faster than light speeds, that time would not move at a different rate for those on board the ship relative to those on Earth when they do so, that transporters could work, and that aliens exist on other planets who look just like us (except they have pointy ears or ridges on their heads); yet somehow they cannot accept that a zipline could break or that a starship could go underwater.

by Anonymousreply 5805/22/2013

R58, look up the definition of "suspension of disbelief". It starts with internal consistency once the rules are set up. And beyond that, most things in Star Trek, including war speed, have physical explanations that "make sense", and there was even an explanation for why most alien races (hardly all) are humanoid.

Nobody isn't accepting that a zipline can't break. It's the cheesiness of the writing, the clichés, etc.

And no, a star ship can't go underwater. It's designed for the vacuum of space. It can handle atmospheric pressures somewhere between 0 and 1... not 50. And lifting out as rapidly as it did would snap the thing in two.

It's not a "fanboy" Q&A. It's an "intelligent and informed persons's" Q&A. Someone who cares about writing, and hates sloppy shit.

The problem with Star Trek is that it threw out the science in "Sci-Fi" and replaced it with just "magic". No rules. Things work exactly when the writer needs/wants them to work (to get out of corners he wrote himself into) and they fail exactly when the plot needs them to fail.

If you continue reading that Q&A at the link, you'll hit some of the real issues, especially surrounding the magic blood cure that raises anything from the dead. You can bet they'll just conveniently ignore the universe shattering consequences of that discovery in any future movies or shows... it was grotesquely lazy, pandering writing, contrived to try and create a re-hash of the ending of "The Wrath of Khan", inversed.

by Anonymousreply 5905/22/2013

In other words, r59: you're a geeky fanboi yourself and now you're sulking because I've hurt your feelings.

by Anonymousreply 6005/23/2013

That Q&A has nothing to do with "fanboys", and everything to do with "thinking human beings expecting consistent writing", imho.

It nails it.

It's a fun movie, with exciting moments and some decent humor... but there's some real hacky writing in there and plot-holes and stupidities and "deus-ex machine"-level conveniences thrown that really just cheapen the entire thing.

The movie should have and could have been a lot better if it had had better writers.

No surprise the writer involved is the same one involved in the utter crap movie "Prometheus", as well as the frustrating TV show "LOST" (where so much was brought up, so little was resolved, and the final season was pretty shitty)

by Anonymousreply 6105/23/2013

R60, I think quite the contrary: You're saying you have absolutely no standards, and don't care about writing or characters or motivations or consistency... you just like big explosions and lense flares.

by Anonymousreply 6205/23/2013

[quote] "deus-ex machine"

That obviously should be "deus ex machina" ... stupid auto-correct (it tried to auto-correct it three times just in me posting this stupid correction)

by Anonymousreply 6305/23/2013

[quote]You're saying you have absolutely no standards, and don't care about writing or characters or motivations or consistency

What bullshit. That piece reproduced above isn't complaining about character or motivations at all. It was complaining about physical probabilities, like a zipline breaking and a starship being able to function under water.

My point is simply that it's completely ridiculous to complain about that sort of thing when the series is predicated on all kinds of physical impossibilities, like spaceships moving faster than the speed of light and the successful teleportation of human beings.

by Anonymousreply 6405/23/2013

[quote]My point is simply that it's completely ridiculous to complain about that sort of thing when the series is predicated on all kinds of physical impossibilities

And your point is wrong.

They've set up a reality in Star Trek. Arbitrarily and carelessly violating that reality breaks suspension of disbelief.

You really don't get it.

There's SCIENCE FICTION, and there's ARBITRARY MAGIC, and this Star Trek is filled with the latter, and throws out the former.

If ANYTHING is possible at the whim of the writer because he thinks it's "neat", then there are no stakes. No tension. When Spock died in the original Wrath of Khan, it meant something. When Kirk died in this half-baked re-hash of that far superior movie... everyone knew immediately how he would be "saved" by the "magic blood", and there was simply no tension or pathos or anything.

And a space-ship operating under water is just ridiculous.

And you really should read the whole article t the link... it goes a lot deeper than you seem to be suggesting. You seemed on zip-lines for some bizarre reason, apparently incapable of understanding that the fact that zip-lines can break isn't the issue here. It's the arbitrary, clichéd, nonsensical writing surrounding it and the other things mentioned.

And as for character and motivations... yes, those are discussed in the longer article. And the point is that such things were jettisoned in favor of big explosions and lens flares and "gee this would look cool" crap that frequently makes no sense in the context of the universe the movie is set in.

by Anonymousreply 6505/23/2013

Continuing from where R56 left off:


Meanwhile, Rose’s boyfriend Mickey from Doctor Who puts a ring in a glass and blows up the Starfleet library in London.

[bold]Why does he do that?[/bold]

In exchange for Benedict Cumberbatch saving his sick kid. This forces all the Starfleet bigwigs — including Pike, who’s reinstated as the captain of the Enterprise — and Kirk, who becomes Pike’s first officer — to meet at very specific room with large windows at Starfleet HQ to discuss the situation.

[bold]That sounds like a bad idea.[/bold]

As it turns out, it is. Cumberbatch bombed the library just to get all the heads of Starfleet in this room, so he can use a small gunship and shoot the hell out of everyone in it. Pike dies before Kirk manages to destroy the ship with a fire hose, and Cumberbatch beams away.

[bold]Pike dies? He doesn’t get in his little wheelchair box?[/bold]

Alas, no. Because everything is about Kirk, Kirk uses the opportunity to ask Starfleet Admiral Peter Weller for permission to take the Enterprise and go kill the shit out of Benedict Cumberbatch. Weller accepts. After Scotty somehow figures out that Cumberbatch has gone to the Klingon homeworld, Weller gives the Enterprise 72 experimental new photon torpedoes and says when they locate Harrison, they need to just bomb him from orbit.

[bold]Eesh. So that “kill the shit out of Benedict Cumberbatch” thing was literal, huh?[/bold]

Very much so.

[bold]That... that doesn’t seem very Starfleet-y to me.[/bold]

Well, it doesn’t seem very Starfleet-y to Spock, either, who points out to Kirk that it’s both legally and morally wrong to kill even a known terrorist without a trial. But Kirk really, really want to get revenge for Pike, even to the point of firing Scotty when Scotty refuses to allow the mysterious photon torpedoes on board unless he can see what’s in them (something to do with them maybe fucking up the warp engine).

[bold]Kirk fires Scotty? What kind of a Star Trek film is this?[/bold]

Well, he accepts Scotty’s resignation, but I think your question stands. Anyways, Carol Marcus — who is Admiral Peter Weller’s daughter, although we’re not supposed to know this, and who also has an English accent for some reason — sneaks on board, because she’s a weapons specialist and interested in the torpedoes.

[bold]Wasn’t Carol Marcus a molecular biologist in the original Trek universe?[/bold]

Yeah, I assume the career switch is Eric Bana’s fault.

[bold]So then what?[/bold]

Then Kirk finally decides that murdering a man in cold blood possibly isn’t the right thing to do, and announces they are going to try to catch Benedict Cumberbatch alive. They head to Kronos and are pretty much immediately caught by Klingons, but are saved by Benedict Cumberbatch.

[bold]Huh? Why does he save them?[/bold]

I think mostly to show what a supreme badass he is, since he takes them all out simultaneously, including a few ships, thanks to a very big gun. And then he surrenders.

[bold]Huh? What? Why?[/bold]

Well, he finds out about the weird torpedoes — specifically, the number of them, which is 72 — and then surrenders. There’s actually a reason.

[bold]Which is?[/bold]

Well, as Kirk finds out when he interrogates Benedict Cumberbatch, Cumberbatch made the torpedoes for Peter Weller, and inside each torpedo is one of his cryogenically frozen people, because as it turns out that Cumberbatch is actually —




Aren’t you shocked? Aren’t you surprised at this incredible reveal?


by Anonymousreply 6605/23/2013


Aren’t you shocked? Aren’t you surprised at this incredible reveal?

[bold]No, I’m just angry. When the movie was announced, Abrams and whoever clearly stated that Cumberbatch would be playing a canon Trek character, and everybody guessed it was Khan. Then they promised he wasn’t playing Khan. And then they said Cumberbatch’s character’s name was John Harrison, even though there’s no previous Trek character named John Harrison, and again we knew it was Khan. And they tried to make it this whole big mystery as if we were all morons who had some how forgotten a classic Trek character named John Harrison, like they were actually going to pull one over on us when we were telling them over an over again that we knew it was Khan and the only thing they were accomplishing by denying it was 1) being assholes and 2) insulting our intelligence.[/bold]

Well —

[bold]And furthermore, using Khan just proves that nu-Trek is going to be nothing more than the greatest hits version of Star Trek, and not even the original hits — some new band covering the old hits. It means that Abrams doesn’t have any original ideas for Star Trek, and is content to rehash the shit people enjoyed the first time. Of all the classic Trek characters to bring back, of all the classic stories they could have brought to mass audiences for the first time, or even bad stories that they could have improved, they go with the one character everybody already fucking knows because they think all we want to see is the same old shit.[/bold]

You seem to have strong feelings about this.

[bold]I do. Also, did you say Khan put his frozen people in torpedoes?[/bold]


[bold]He’s a brilliant strategist and that’s the best plan he could come up with? To hide the people he so desperately wanted to save in explosives? What the fuck was he going to do if Kirk hadn’t conveniently had all those torpedoes on him? And why did Peter Weller give Kirk all 72 torpedoes to kill a single dude in the first place?[/bold] Eric Bana?

[bold]Fuck you.[/bold]

Don’t shoot the Frequently Asked Question Answerer, please. Anyways, Kirk verifies the frozen torpedo people with thanks from Carol Markus and Bones, gets some coordinates from Khan, and calls Scotty, the person he’d so recently let go and asks him to check it out. As it turns out, Peter Weller is building a giant combat starship out there because he wants to militarize Starfleet because he’s certain we’re going to meet more races like the Klingons and also because he’s a dick. Weller is also the one who found Khan floating in space, woke him up, and forced him to use his intellect and powers to make badass weapons for him.

[bold]Why was Khan floating in space?[/bold]

Actually, this Khan has the same origin as the original Khan; he’s a genetically engineered warrior, created for the Eugenics Wars of the 1990s. He ruled part of Asia befor —

[bold]Wait, what? The Eugenics Wars of the 1990s?[/bold]


[bold]We didn’t have any Eugenics Wars in the 1990s, unless you count Dawson’s Creek.[/bold]

Yeah, but Gene Roddenberry didn’t know that when he created Khan in 1967.

[bold]But we do, because it’s 2013.[/bold]

But it’s canon! Don’t you like canon?

[bold]I like it when it doesn’t get stupid. And why the hell would Abrams and crew stick to Khan’s origin timeline, even though it makes zero sense, but also suddenly change him to a white dude? That’s cherry-picking the stupidest parts of canon and non-canon![/bold]

I don’t know. I think it’s nice that in this day and age, a white male can still be cast as an Indian played by a Mexican. White men really have come a long way!

[bold]I’m going to punch you in your throat.[/bold]


by Anonymousreply 6705/23/2013


Anyways, that’s Khan’s deal. Weller flies the Killerprise to meet Kirk and steal his prisoner, so he 1) doesn’t get caught being an evil dick and 2) can continue being an evil dick and militarize Starfleet. He beams his daughter onto his ship, and then starts firing. The Enterprise takes more direct hits than it does in the entirety of the original TV series.


But before Weller fires the final shot, Scotty, who has snuck upon the Killerprise and apparently been waiting for this exact moment, resets the Killerprise’s power, forcing it to boot back up like Mac (and almost as long). Since the Enterprise has no weapons or shields, Kirk takes the opportunity to team up with Khan and they fly over to the Killerprise; Scotty lets them in.


Yeah, Kirk teams up with Khan! Isn’t that cool? The two enemies, forced to work together to take out a greater enemy?

[bold]No, because Khan’s an asshole. Kirk’s being a moron.[/bold]

In Kirk’s defense, it only takes him 5-10 minutes to realize he’s made a horrible mistake. This mistake is confirmed when they reach the bridge and Khan beats the shit out of Kirk and Scotty, breaks Carol’s leg, and crushes Peter Weller’s head in his hands.

[bold]Yeah, that’s pretty much what I figured.[/bold]

Meanwhile, Spock calls old Spock to ask him what the deal with this Khan guy is.

[bold]I thought Old Spock has agreed never to tell New Spock anything so he could live his own life and all that jazz.[/bold]

Yes. And we know this because Spock says “I had vowed never to tell you anything of your future because I want to live your own life and blah blah blah” just before adding “but Khan is an asshole and here’s exactly how we defeated him.”


Khan offers to trade Kirk and the others for his people and their torpedo beds, which acting captain Spock agrees to. Of course, Spock arms all the torpedoes right before Khan beams them over, so the Killerprise explodes (although not before shooting the Enterprise several million more times).

[bold]Brilliant strategist, eh?[/bold]

He was a little excited. Also, he still had Peter Weller’s skull juice all over his hands; that would distract anybody.

[bold]So we’re done?[/bold]

By no means. The Enterprise is pretty much dead and has entered Earth’s orbit, meaning it's falling really, really fast. The problem is that the warp drive is misaligned, so —

[bold]Wait a minute. I know what’s happening here.[/bold]

— so the ship can’t stop falling, but the warp drive room is full of radiation and —

[bold]Goddammit. GODDAMMIT[/bold]

— so Kirk runs into the Warp Drive room and kicks it back into place —


— and then Spock realizes what’s happened and he runs down to the room where he sees Kirk dying behind the locked glass door and —


— and Kirk puts his hand on the glass and Spock puts his hand on the glass and he makes the Vulcan salute and Kirk dies and —

[bold]NO DON’T YOU SAY IT[/bold]

— Spock —


— Spock yells —



[bold]Fuck. [/bold]


by Anonymousreply 6805/23/2013

Why don’t you like it?

[bold]I liked it just fine, the first time I saw it in Wrath of Khan. Of course, the reason I like it is is because Kirk and Spock’s friendship has been part of pop culture for 15 years, so Spock’s death and Kirk’s anguish was given some actual agency, instead of now, when Kirk and Spock have known each other for four hours of screentime, two of which they didn’t like each other. I also liked it the first time because it was new and not a crass, creatively bankrupt attempt to manipulate the audience’s emotions, not through sadness because there’s clearly no way Kirk is actually going to stay dead, but because the scene is nothing more “HERE IS SOMETHING YOU HAVE SEEN BEFORE WITH A SLIGHT DIFFERENCE SO YOU WILL LIKE IT” as opposed to even trying to give us something, anything, genuinely new.[/bold]


[bold]So next movie is “The Search for Kirk,” I suppose?[/bold]

Nah. See, Bones drew some of Khan’s blood to figure out why he was so strong and resilient, and he injected it into a dead Tribble because… because I suppose Bones’ hobby is inject dead things with various people’s blood? It’s a little weird.

[bold]/sound of facepalm[/bold]

As it happens, as soon as Bones’ hears Kirk has died, the dead Tribble comes back to life, thanks to Khan’s blood!

[bold]/sound of gun being loaded[/bold]

The Killerprise has crash-landed on San Francisco, and Khan is of course fine despite the destruction of many, many high-rise buildings and thousands upon thousands of people. Spock chases Khan down, they have a fist fight on top of some moving flying cars, and with help from Uhura they get their man. And they bring Kirk back to life!

[bold]Uh-huh. So they’ve just eliminated death forever.[/bold]

Beg pardon?

[bold]Kirk was dead for many, many minutes of radiation poisoning, right? He gets injected with Khan’s blood —[/bold]

A synthesized version of it.

[bold]— even better. So what wouldn’t Khan’s blood fix? Decapitation, but most other mortal wounds? Poisons? Phaser blasts, I bet. Certainly most other illnesses and cancers and such. And probably aging, at leats to an extent. So basically Bones has discovered the secret to eternal life, and not only will no one on the Enterprise ever need to die again unless their body is somehow destroyed, but all of the civilization — heck, probably galactic civilization – will be irrevocably changed because of this amazing discovery.[/bold]

Uh, I don’t think so. I think they just save Kirk and then forget about it.

[bold]Of course they do. And I suppose the Tribble that Bones brought back to life multiplies like Tribbles do and causes its own horrible situation?[/bold]

No, it’s just not mentioned again. Maybe Bones kills it with his bare hands to keep it from spawning. Or maybe he injects it with Mountain Dew or something, since that’s how he rolls.

[bold]/sound of gun being cocked[/bold]

And then Kirk gives a speech at Starfleet a year later, because everything is all about him, and then they start on their five-year mission! Which will almost certainly involve Space Whales, since that’s the next biggest thing people remember about Star Trek.

The end!

by Anonymousreply 6905/23/2013

[quote]The end!


by Anonymousreply 7005/23/2013

Whining about the Enterprise going underwater is really stupid. To quote the lyrics to MST3K:

If you're wondering how he eats and drinks

And other science facts,

Just repeat to yourself 'It's just a show:

I should really just relax.'

It's like the nutjob who went on and on (literally for YEARS!) on DL about how it's impossible for Peggy Olsen on Mad Men to be a Norwegian-Catholic from Bay Ridge, or the nutjob (the same one?) currently freaking out in post after post on the Game of Thrones thread about Peter Dinklage's inaccurate Westeros accent (!).

Repeat to yourselves: "It's just a show: I should really just relax."

by Anonymousreply 7105/23/2013

[quote]Whining about the Enterprise going underwater is really stupid.

No, it really isn't.

Never in the history of Star Trek has any such capability ever been suggested or demonstrated. It also doesn't make sense within the context of the science and the show and the previous movies... it's inconsistent with all that has gone before. Never mind that as a plot device, it's really super-stupid. When you can beam down to the surface and stay hidden from the natives... why would you bring such a massive ship down and park it just off shore of the locals you're trying to hide from? How could you POSSIBLE get down, and get back up, without any of them ever seeing or noticing? Even if you completely IGNORE how impossible it is scientifically and logically from just a physical standpoint... IT MAKES NO SENSE TO THE PLOT OR CHARACTERS. It is, in fact, the stupidest thing you could possibly do.

The SOLE reason for doing it is "I think it would be cool, and look neat". Which is not servicing the story or the characters or anything. It's just masturbation.

by Anonymousreply 7205/23/2013

And posting obsessively to argue with multiple people about a spaceship going underwater is somehow NOT "just masturbation"???




by Anonymousreply 7305/23/2013

[quote]Never in the history of Star Trek has any such capability ever been suggested or demonstrated.

"Thirty Days," VOY, S5E9.

by Anonymousreply 7405/23/2013

R73? Get a brain. It's a useful thing. You can think with it.

Face it: Star Trek "Into Darkness" was crap writing. And that FAQ is spot-on, like it or not.

by Anonymousreply 7505/23/2013

Of course a twit like Abrams is going to competitively reference the biggest hit of the last few years in HIS blockbuster. He just did it very badly. As the FAQ stated, the Enterprise-coming-out-of-the-water shot was obviously a callback/dick compare to the SHIELD vehicle of "The Avengers."

by Anonymousreply 7605/23/2013


Evidently not. She still can't shut the fuck up.

by Anonymousreply 7705/23/2013

Thanks, VotN! I was just about to post about that Voyager episode.

by Anonymousreply 7805/23/2013

One lame Voyager episode does not make under-water space-ships anything but stupid.

by Anonymousreply 7905/23/2013

For all this film's flaws, for all the logical inconsistencies and plot twists I saw coming an hour away... it was worth it to see Spock and Khan match wits.

I just wish there had been more matching of wits, and less fisticuffs.

by Anonymousreply 8005/23/2013

I agree, R80.

by Anonymousreply 8105/23/2013

re: the under the water thing - the ship has sheilds and it's own environment and is sealed to prevent the vacuum of space getting in, I don't think it is impossible that that same technology could not allow it to be under water....

that why did it need to be on the planet at all?

by Anonymousreply 8205/24/2013

Also, Scotty had some throwaway line about the ship being able to handle the thick atmosphere of a gas giant, so it's not that implausible that it could handle the pressure of being underwater.

by Anonymousreply 8305/24/2013

Exactly the point, R82. Never mind how stupid it is to have a ship underwater... it was completely unnecessary (and in fact, illogical).

by Anonymousreply 8405/24/2013

Continues the tradition where a villain is captured in the middle of the movie just to show us that he meant to be caught...part of his plan.

Skyfall, The Avengers, Salt...

by Anonymousreply 8505/24/2013

But why did he go to the Klingon homeworld anyway?

He had to have known he wouldn't be safe there, and Marcus's original plan would have taken out him and all his frozen pals.

by Anonymousreply 8605/25/2013

We all knew Kirk wasn't going to die because...well, he does make it to the original series.

And the other capsules hold 72 other sources of blood. Kill Khan and just defrost some other blood. But we new Khan was going to live because...see above.

Whatever happen to cloaking devices? Easier than going underwater I say.

Simon Pegg saves these movies.

by Anonymousreply 8705/25/2013

[quote]Simon Pegg saves these movies.

Yes. Yes he does.

Of course, now that people can just 'transwarp' to any planet they want at any time, no matter the distance or direction, who needs star ships any more?

And it's fascinating how they were instantly able to pinpoint his location way after the fact, at such an incredible distance, and head right to him.

Seriously, who writes this shit?

by Anonymousreply 8805/25/2013

Abrams had such an epic vision for Trek. He wanted it to be his Star Wars but was continually frustrated by Paramount and CBS refusing to relinquish licensing of pre-2009 Trek merchandise.

I'm very disappointed in Paramount and CBS' short sighted vision for Trek. Sure, it generates $20 million for them annually, but that's peanuts compared to Star Wars.

He was frustrated that all the merchandising post-2009 continued to be non-Abrams product.

I can understand his frustration. People may have rejected Into Darkness because they're getting mixed messages about which is the "real" Star Trek.

Sadly, it looks like the franchise is destined to grow old and perish with its core fanbase. From a capitalist viewpoint it's an egregious lost opportunity.

Just wait until the new Star Wars hits with merchandising you can't ignore. Abrams has alreadly canceled various completed Star Wars related projects just because it's out of line with his inspired vision of what Star Wars can be as opposed to what it is.

by Anonymousreply 8905/25/2013

jj abrams is a cheap schlocky _______.

by Anonymousreply 9005/25/2013

The merchandising for the 2009 film was a *disaster*, R89. They couldn't give the Playmates JJTrek toys away. Toys'r'Us still had a decent supply of the 2009 toys up until recently. Paramount continues the licensing of the original properties because they continue to have a base that will buy the related merchandise.

When the 2009 film came out the current model kit licensee for Trek, Round 2, attempted to do a JJprise model but the attempt was met with both indifference and hostility from their buyers. They ultimately let that license (seperate from the main Trek license) lapse. They eventually decided to produce a huge $150 original Enterprise kit that was more readily welcomed. The JJprise was finally produced as a model by Revell Germany, not available over here.

The JJ films may beat the originals at the boxoffice, but the majority of those attending are casual fans at best. Paramount played it right, they know who butters their Trek Merch bread...

by Anonymousreply 9105/25/2013

[quote]Abrams had such an epic vision for Trek. He wanted it to be his Star Wars

It's not and will never be and under no circumstances would ever be "his" Star Wars. It's Gene Roddenberry's Star Wars.

If he wants a universe to create and control, let him make up his own.

by Anonymousreply 9205/25/2013

OMG, I thought *I* was a fanboy! I never figured the REAL fanboys would go so OCD with this thread! A few facts:

**The fact that the Enterprise can travel beyond the speed of light ITSELF DESTROYS A FUNDAMENTAL THEORY OF PHYSICS. It is not THAT much of a stretch for it to be submersible. Fuck, Bond did it 30 years ago in a fucking Lotus Esprit, so why the fuck shouldn't Starfleet do it?

[quote]And we know this because Spock says “I had vowed never to tell you anything of your future because I want to live your own life and blah blah blah” just before adding “but Khan is an asshole and here’s exactly how we defeated him.”

Actually, Spock Prime said nothing to that effect: he merely said Khan was one of the most evil people they'd ever encountered, and he was not to be trusted. This is not what I'd call time-changing advice.

[quote]We didn’t have any Eugenics Wars in the 1990s, unless you count Dawson’s Creek.

Ha! Fucking hilarious, and my major issue with ST sticking to canon on this one.

[quote]And no, a star ship can't go underwater. It's designed for the vacuum of space.

And ... right: a ship can create artificial gravity in space, even when busting into warp speed, but it's somehow implausible that it can't go underwater?

[quote]So what wouldn’t Khan’s blood fix? Decapitation, but most other mortal wounds? Poisons? Phaser blasts, I bet. Certainly most other illnesses and cancers and such. And probably aging, at leats to an extent. So basically Bones has discovered the secret to eternal life

A truism that will likely remain unexplored. Hell, I doubt we'll even see transwarp in the next sequel. Of course, it would be very interesting if Kirk turned out to be a ZOMBIE.

by Anonymousreply 9305/26/2013

[quote]Whatever happen to cloaking devices?

They are the property of the Romulans & Klingons at this point in the timeline. No way would they share it with the Federation.

[quote]Of course, now that people can just 'transwarp' to any planet they want at any time, no matter the distance or direction, who needs star ships any more?

Exploration. You have to know where you are beaming to before you can beam there.

[quote]And the other capsules hold 72 other sources of blood. Kill Khan and just defrost some other blood.

And take a chance of having another Khan running around?

by Anonymousreply 9405/26/2013

I saw the movie today, and loved it! Much better than the first one imo. Better plot, cool villain and more action. It had it all! Also, was I the only one who noticed all the homoeroticism in the movie? The scene when Kirk died and Spock touched his hand on the glass, aww. That was so cute! So funny that Kirk and Spock have more chemistry than Kirk with his supposed new blonde love interest. LOL. It's great that Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto are so good friends irl, it definitely makes their relationship on screen more believable.

by Anonymousreply 9505/26/2013

[quote]And ... right: a ship can create artificial gravity in space, even when busting into warp speed, but it's somehow implausible that it can't go underwater?

Well, ignoring that they've explained the concept of "inertial dampers" and all that... and have been consistent in that up until these movies... you're still ignoring the real problem with the stupidity of putting the Enterprise under water like that: it was completely pointless and purposeless and in fact lead directly to the violation of the prime directive. There was absolutely no logical need for the ship to be underwater. Or for spock to be inside an erupting volcano (that's even more ridiculous).

The writing was stupid. Huge plot holes. Unnecessary ones. Huge logic holes. All just to provide either fan wank-service or to make a cool SPFX "set piece". Neither of which are what Star Trek is all about.

It's not about being a fan-boy either. It's about expecting a little bit of quality in the writing, a little consistency in the rules of the universe that has been set up, and a little bit of character development and consistency.

by Anonymousreply 9605/26/2013

Sending Spock into the volcano illustrates Kirk's bullheadedness and also his conscience - saving the indigenous species of Nibiru. It also provides a reason for him to be demoted, blah blah blah. Spock would have protested, due to Prime Directive, of course, but Kirk could have..ordered him to do it, anyway?

My question is: What becomes of the little girl they saved with Khan's blood? Does she become a new supervillain in an upcoming sequel?

by Anonymousreply 9705/26/2013

So who did Heather Langenkamp play???

by Anonymousreply 9805/27/2013

@[Reply 11] who wrote: "I had fun at "Into Darkness" but in retrospect much of it felt like overblown fan-fiction. I still don't quite understand what Khan's old crew was doing in those torpedoes. (Sleeping I guess.) The "magic blood" dues-ex-machina was straight from Battlestar Galactica."

The problem with those who weren't lucky enough to have watched the original "Star Trek" series when it first aired (1966/67 to 1968/69) is that you attempt to compare it to movies, TV series, books that came after TOS aired.

Khan Noonian Singh was a character created in the original "Star Trek" series episode "Space Seed" (1967). The writers indicated, in that episode, that Khan was from a northern province in India. All of the genetic 'supermen and women' where from nations around the world.

Khan's crew were in those torpedoes because Admiral Marcus put them, in there cryo chambers, there (you 'do' know they were frozen, right?) there. He realized his mistake in reviving Khan and wanted to kill him and the others.

And why does it have to be a 'magic blood' promise from another show? From a science fiction (and scientific) point of view, blood belonging to a genetically engineered human might have special properties.

by Anonymousreply 9906/02/2013

[quote]And why does it have to be a 'magic blood' promise from another show? From a science fiction (and scientific) point of view, blood belonging to a genetically engineered human might have special properties.

Oh good lord.

by Anonymousreply 10006/02/2013

Quinto looks hot here.

by Anonymousreply 10106/03/2013

This thread is a perfect illustration of why DL boys don't get laid.

by Anonymousreply 10206/04/2013

"Khan's crew were in those torpedoes because Admiral Marcus put them, in their cryo chambers, there (you 'do' know they were frozen, right?) there."

Actually according to the novelization (yes I read Star Trek movie novelizations) Khan snuck his crew members into those torpedoes because Admiral Marcus kept reneging on promises to revive them. Khan was doing weapon design for the admiral and somehow managed to pull that little stunt off. Unfortunately even with some added detail from the novelization this story makes little sense. (The book version isn't really worth buying)

It is puzzling to have Khan be British this time around - they might as well make Chekov Puerto-Rican. It occurs to me that Abrams was reluctant to cast an Indian actor or anyone with darker skin in the role since Khan is essentially a terrorist in this film.

by Anonymousreply 10306/06/2013

"It is puzzling to have Khan be British this time around"

Since I'm used to the French Captain Picard having a Brit accent, I don't have much trouble with that one.

I just tell myself that although Khan was born God knows where and of multi-racial ancestry, he went to college at Oxford or Cambridge.

by Anonymousreply 10406/06/2013

So after viewing the movie myself and after reading this thread and other reviews I get the impression that the movie is considered generally enjoyable and entertaining but still does not manage to create new fans. I blame a luke warm rehashing script and also an over - abundance of super hero movies. The movie doesn't seem to hurt the franchise but it hasn't stimulated it either. That's too bad.

I was hoping that it would at least create an appetite for a new TV show. But I don't see it happening. Or has anyone heard anything over at CBS?

by Anonymousreply 10506/16/2013

R87: a little late to the party (waited a month or so to see the movie), but:

Why Doesn't McCoy (and Starfleet medical) keep taking Khan's blood to create greater quantities of "superserum"?

I assume that even 300 years from now certain legal, ethical, and medical issues prevail, so that even while comatose, Khan "owns" his blood. Taking it (even with the best intentions) would violate those laws - and so: no more superserum without Khan's permission. It's why we don't currently harvest the organs from healthy criminals.

Of course, this means that someone will eventually defrost him, and set up the 4th film in the series.

by Anonymousreply 10606/16/2013

[quote]Why Doesn't McCoy (and Starfleet medical) keep taking Khan's blood to create greater quantities of "superserum"?

Well, McCoy said it was "synthesized" already, and that's what he used to cure/resurrect Kirk.

So they can make the shit on-demand now.

Which is really a problem for future movies unless they somehow just "forget" about this miracle cure... which apparently has existed since 1990, but it took McCoy and a Tribble to figure it out. (rolling eyes)

by Anonymousreply 10706/16/2013

[quote]I still don't know who or what Scotty's little alien buddy is, but I just love him.

Maybe he/she is an ancestor of Morn from DS9.

by Anonymousreply 10806/16/2013

I saw it last night and really enjoyed it.

by Anonymousreply 10906/23/2013

Does Chris Hemsworth play a lot in the film, or he just appears in one, or two scenes?

by Anonymousreply 11003/01/2015
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!