Star Trek: Into Darkness

  • 71 Replies
  • 8506 Views
*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Star Trek: Into Darkness
« on: May 21, 2013, 02:49:09 PM »
This isn't Star Trek. What is this? Why does it have "Star Trek" in the title?

?

Blanko

  • 7206
  • Terrorist
Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
« Reply #1 on: May 21, 2013, 02:56:17 PM »
It is now.

You're about four years late on this.

Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
« Reply #2 on: May 21, 2013, 02:56:38 PM »
$$$

Story has been told to death, only an "alternate universe" can bring back the masses and not a handful of Trekkies.

*

rooster

  • 5669
Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
« Reply #3 on: May 21, 2013, 02:57:44 PM »
They're certainly better than any other Star Trek movies.

?

Blanko

  • 7206
  • Terrorist
Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
« Reply #4 on: May 21, 2013, 03:12:05 PM »
They're certainly better than any other Star Trek movies.

Wow, what a great achievement that is.

*

Supertails

  • 4387
  • what do i put here
Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
« Reply #5 on: May 21, 2013, 03:15:20 PM »
I think they're pretty great.
Recently listened to:


*

rooster

  • 5669
Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
« Reply #6 on: May 21, 2013, 04:09:45 PM »
They're certainly better than any other Star Trek movies.

Wow, what a great achievement that is.
hehe right? I really do like them though.

Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
« Reply #7 on: May 21, 2013, 05:21:34 PM »
the even # films are passable,

I give this reboot cred for an "odd" movie that was good.

*

Vindictus

  • 5455
  • insightful personal text
Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
« Reply #8 on: May 21, 2013, 06:22:35 PM »
They're capable action movies, not Star Trek movies (even though there's been a lot of shitty Star Trek action movies).

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35371
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
« Reply #9 on: May 21, 2013, 07:11:56 PM »
This isn't Star Trek. What is this? Why does it have "Star Trek" in the title?

Tell me more.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
« Reply #10 on: May 21, 2013, 07:18:40 PM »
They're capable action movies, not Star Trek movies (even though there's been a lot of shitty Star Trek action movies).

i.e. all the TNG films, except maybe Generations, but it sucked anyway.

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35371
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
« Reply #11 on: May 21, 2013, 07:21:22 PM »
You thought Generations was better than First Contact?

Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
« Reply #12 on: May 22, 2013, 07:10:43 AM »
Generations is right up there with Inusrrection as the worst Trekkie movies.

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12682
Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
« Reply #13 on: May 22, 2013, 02:23:40 PM »
I knew not to expect a Star Trek film after the last one and seeing the trailer, so I went into it with the low expectations I usually reserve for films like Die Hard 17: Keep Dying Harder, Baby

And I was still disappointed.

It didn't even work on its own merits, apart from as an expensive CGI fireworks show. Even with brain turned to only one setting above 'irreversable coma' it's impossible not to notice the glaring contradictions seperated by barely thirty seconds or the stupid, irrelevant and nonsensical scenes (Why was the Enterprise under water? Why was Carol Marcus in her underwear? Why did Khan take one shot to down on the Vengeance but could stand up to twenty point-blank blasts on the Star Wars Episode II ripoff? Why did McCoy need Khan's blood specifically when he had 72 big frozen bags full of eugenics-wars survivors? Why were the transporters so utterly rubbish - unable to transport people whenever the 'plot' needed it to fail? After Khan blows up the SF library with one little pill-like explosive, why would he attempt to kill the SF senior staff with a heligun? Why did the Enterprise fall to Earth, not the Moon, and why did it take only five minutes?)

It was a shitty action film written by a class of fifteen year-old boys, and don't get me started on that cheap bastardisation of the engine room scene in Wrath of Khan.

~~

And there have been some great ST films. Khan, obviously. The Voyage Home was an unapologetically fun and silly romp, The Undiscovered Country was great. First Contact was good. I liked Insurrection because it was like a long TNG episode

Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
« Reply #14 on: May 22, 2013, 02:34:14 PM »
did Heather Lagenkamps cameo make the final cut?

*

rooster

  • 5669
Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
« Reply #15 on: May 22, 2013, 02:49:14 PM »
Khan was faking it when he went down on the Vengeance, I thought that was obvious. Carol was the half naked female that must always be worked in somehow. You can't really use frozen blood and putting one of those popsicles through reanimation would probably take too long or kill them as Khan said. The Enterprise was hiding underwater, I don't know why they entered orbit at all (because it was cool?). And correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the transporter kinda shit in the original Star Trek series too? The rest of the questions I have no answers.

*

Lorddave

  • 16775
Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
« Reply #16 on: May 22, 2013, 03:02:58 PM »
Khan was faking it when he went down on the Vengeance, I thought that was obvious. Carol was the half naked female that must always be worked in somehow. You can't really use frozen blood and putting one of those popsicles through reanimation would probably take too long or kill them as Khan said. The Enterprise was hiding underwater, I don't know why they entered orbit at all (because it was cool?). And correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the transporter kinda shit in the original Star Trek series too? The rest of the questions I have no answers.
Yes but it didn't break often and it couldn't transport lightyears away. (Was that worked in?)
I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

*

rooster

  • 5669
Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
« Reply #17 on: May 22, 2013, 03:07:57 PM »
The transporter didn't break, it just couldn't get a good lock on people if they were moving around too much.

*

Lorddave

  • 16775
Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
« Reply #18 on: May 22, 2013, 06:32:20 PM »
The transporter didn't break, it just couldn't get a good lock on people if they were moving around too much.
In the original series, they had to stand still due to special effects.

However, the idea that a human is somehow better at locking onto a target than a computer is absurd.  They have to move a joystick to lock onto a person yet somehow we have the technology to lock onto a moving target from ORBIT with a missile.

Explain that one to me.
I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

*

rooster

  • 5669
Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
« Reply #19 on: May 22, 2013, 06:52:06 PM »
The transporter didn't break, it just couldn't get a good lock on people if they were moving around too much.
In the original series, they had to stand still due to special effects.

However, the idea that a human is somehow better at locking onto a target than a computer is absurd.  They have to move a joystick to lock onto a person yet somehow we have the technology to lock onto a moving target from ORBIT with a missile.

Explain that one to me.
Wut? I don't know, they're just sticking to canon with the transporter which is y'know, sci-fi from the 60s.

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12682
Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
« Reply #20 on: May 23, 2013, 01:02:40 AM »
Quote
Khan was faking it when he went down on the Vengeance, I thought that was obvious

Hmm maybe. Though if he was really that resistant to phasers there's no reason why he'd fake it.

Quote
Carol was the half naked female that must always be worked in somehow.

We already had that with the cat-ladies. They didn't even try to work in an explanation is my point.

Quote
You can't really use frozen blood and putting one of those popsicles through reanimation would probably take too long or kill them as Khan said.

They already took one of them out to put Kirk in the cryotube. McCoy tells them to stick the body they removed into a forced coma.

Quote
because it was cool?).

Exactly, the mind of a hyperactive teenager.

Quote
And correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the transporter kinda shit in the original Star Trek series too?

yeah, but only when the 'plot' demanded it. Other times they worked better than Voyager-era transporters.

~~

Galaxy Quest was a better Star Trek movie than this.

Actually that's damning with faint praise, Galaxy Quest was awesome. An action/ comedy film which actually respected the series which inspired it.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2013, 01:05:33 AM by Chris Spaghetti »

*

Lorddave

  • 16775
Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
« Reply #21 on: May 23, 2013, 03:36:29 AM »
The transporter didn't break, it just couldn't get a good lock on people if they were moving around too much.
In the original series, they had to stand still due to special effects.

However, the idea that a human is somehow better at locking onto a target than a computer is absurd.  They have to move a joystick to lock onto a person yet somehow we have the technology to lock onto a moving target from ORBIT with a missile.

Explain that one to me.
Wut? I don't know, they're just sticking to canon with the transporter which is y'know, sci-fi from the 60s.

Then kirk and sulu would be dead. The 60s transporter didn't require buttons and coukdnt be made to beam up moving people. But in Enterprise, it could so I'd let it slide.

My complaint is the damn joystick.  If a computer knows where Kirk is by the blue dot on the screen that says "kirk" and it knows where the cursor is on the screen, then in a few milliseconds it can move that cursor to that dot. Certainly a lot faster and more accurate than a human.
I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

*

rooster

  • 5669
Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
« Reply #22 on: May 23, 2013, 04:38:51 AM »
It was dramatic?

These movies are good and not disrespectful or unworthy of being called a Star Trek film. They just have more action and less hippie cultural meet and greet. I mean seriously, it was a reboot of TWoK but it wasn't terrible. I think you guys are being a little harsh since a lot of people and a lot of Star Trek fans like them.

Galaxy Quest is awesome.

Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
« Reply #23 on: May 23, 2013, 04:46:21 AM »

*

rooster

  • 5669
Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
« Reply #24 on: May 23, 2013, 04:51:24 AM »
Quote
Khan was faking it when he went down on the Vengeance, I thought that was obvious

Hmm maybe. Though if he was really that resistant to phasers there's no reason why he'd fake it.

Quote
Carol was the half naked female that must always be worked in somehow.

We already had that with the cat-ladies. They didn't even try to work in an explanation is my point.

Quote
You can't really use frozen blood and putting one of those popsicles through reanimation would probably take too long or kill them as Khan said.

They already took one of them out to put Kirk in the cryotube. McCoy tells them to stick the body they removed into a forced coma.

Quote
because it was cool?).

Exactly, the mind of a hyperactive teenager.

Quote
And correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the transporter kinda shit in the original Star Trek series too?

yeah, but only when the 'plot' demanded it. Other times they worked better than Voyager-era transporters.

~~

Galaxy Quest was a better Star Trek movie than this.

Actually that's damning with faint praise, Galaxy Quest was awesome. An action/ comedy film which actually respected the series which inspired it.
There's reason to fake it if he wants to take everyone by surprise.

We did not have half naked cat ladies, we had ladies under a blanket in a dark room.

Maybe they were unsure that anyone other than Khan's blood would work then. He only tested Khan's blood after all, it's the only blood he knew for sure would work.

So because it looks cool then the movie shouldn't have done it? That's kinda ridiculous. Hiding under water is plausible and it looks cool. There's seriously nothing wrong with that.

And okay, if original Star Trek transports sucked when the plot called for it then why do you have such a problem with it in the movie?

*

rooster

  • 5669
Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
« Reply #25 on: May 23, 2013, 04:56:34 AM »
It was dramatic?
And stupid.

more action
Not very Star Trek.

meet and greet
Very Star Trek.
Well I rather not have a Star Trek movie with terrible acting, terrible pacing, and where Kirk spends a lot of time sexing up species. I guess we'll just have to disagree on this.

Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
« Reply #26 on: May 23, 2013, 05:02:34 AM »
The original transporter didn't suck just when the plot needed it to. It sucked all the time.

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12682
Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
« Reply #27 on: May 23, 2013, 09:51:12 AM »
There's reason to fake it if he wants to take everyone by surprise.

Again, if you can shrug off a dozen phaser blasts, why bother pretendting to be stunned to get perhaps a half-second advantage over the others?

Quote
Maybe they were unsure that anyone other than Khan's blood would work then. He only tested Khan's blood after all, it's the only blood he knew for sure would work.


Nice post-hoc rationalisation. Still made no sense.

Quote
So because it looks cool then the movie shouldn't have done it? That's kinda ridiculous. Hiding under water is plausible and it looks cool. There's seriously nothing wrong with that.


No, they shouldn't have done it because it made no sense. They were hiding to get around a never-before-seen loophole of the Prime Directive which states its ok to interfere assuming the aliens don't see you - in which case why not stay in orbit and beam kirk/mcCoy back to the ship? I'm pretty sure there's a good chance that at least one alien would see a structure larger than the petronas towers slowly settling into the sea just a short run from their village?

Quote
And okay, if original Star Trek transports sucked when the plot called for it then why do you have such a problem with it in the movie?

Not when the plot called for it. All the time.

Quote
Well I rather not have a Star Trek movie with terrible acting, terrible pacing, and where Kirk spends a lot of time sexing up species. I guess we'll just have to disagree on this.


So far as I can remember Kirk never sexed up aliens in the movies. In fact I think the only female he sexed at all was the woman he met in San Francisco in the voyage home

Quote
They just have more action and less hippie cultural meet and greet.

That's the entire point of Star Trek, though! Gene Roddenbury's vision WAS a hippy future where man solves problems without warfare, coming together with people of all colours, genders and species to work towards a better future.

if you don't like Star Trek, fine. Just don't create something else entirely and call it Star Trek. In the same way, if I order an onion soup in a restaurant and get a curry, I'm not going to be impressed by the chef arguing that "No one like onion soup anyway, this is more exciting!"

If you want to make a dumb space action movie written by and for ADHD teenagers then you're quite within your rights. Just don't call it Star Trek.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2013, 09:54:45 AM by Chris Spaghetti »

?

Blanko

  • 7206
  • Terrorist
Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
« Reply #28 on: May 23, 2013, 10:55:55 AM »
I wouldn't even care about how loyal it is to source material; the first Abrams Star Trek was a visually exhausting mess with a ridiculous plot and unlikable characters, and adding Nimoy in as fanservice was just distasteful on top of opening up an entire world of plot holes. I haven't seen Into Darkness, but the general consensus seems to be that it's somehow even worse than the original reboot, so I might not even bother with it.

*

rooster

  • 5669
Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
« Reply #29 on: May 23, 2013, 12:07:07 PM »
I like The Star Trek show and I like these new movies, but they are different. It drives me crazy when people expect the reboot to be the same thing because reboots are ALWAYS different.

Some loyal fans will just never accept that.


I was quoting your wording, Chris, when you said the transporter only sucked when the plot called for it. My original statement was that the original transporter was always terrible, so that was a fun roundabout agreement we had. And I meant Kirk sexed up all the species in the shows, the movies were too terrible to mention so I don't care that they're not similar to those. And Leonard Nemoy doesn't create plotholes, they're just part of a different quantum reality- like that poor Warf TNG episode.

You could even assume it's not a hippie meet and greet because this crew is young in its career and only at the end of this movie received their 5 year exploration mission.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2013, 12:08:51 PM by rooster »