Talya wrote:
Star Trek has always had respect for science. It didn't always get it right, but it always treated scientific theory with respect and tried to mostly play by the rules.
Time travel whales?
| The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
| Star Trek Into Darkness https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9447 |
Page 1 of 5 |
| Author: | FarSky [ Thu Dec 06, 2012 8:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | Star Trek Into Darkness |
Announcement trailers are up, full trailer coming soon, 9 minutes of the film are playing before screenings of The Hobbit. The Japanese trailer has a few more shots that intrigue... |
|
| Author: | Micheal [ Thu Dec 06, 2012 12:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Khaaaaaaan! My guess is the reboot finds a way to return the Botany Bay to Earth, and Khan tries to take over, as he had tried to do before his exile on the colony ship. YMMV. |
|
| Author: | Talya [ Thu Dec 06, 2012 12:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Micheal wrote: Khaaaaaaan! My guess is the reboot finds a way to return the Botany Bay to Earth, and Khan tries to take over, as he had tried to do before his exile on the colony ship. YMMV. I don't think Benedict Cumberbatch is playing Khan (IMDb's rumor be damned.) |
|
| Author: | Numbuk [ Thu Dec 06, 2012 2:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Talya wrote: Micheal wrote: Khaaaaaaan! My guess is the reboot finds a way to return the Botany Bay to Earth, and Khan tries to take over, as he had tried to do before his exile on the colony ship. YMMV. I don't think Benedict Cumberbatch is playing Khan (IMDb's rumor be damned.) It's all but confirmed in nerd circles that he's not Khan (for which I am glad... leave Montalbon alone). |
|
| Author: | Lenas [ Thu Dec 06, 2012 2:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Star Trek Into Darkness |
He's playing Gary Mitchell. This movie = /fapfapfap |
|
| Author: | Numbuk [ Thu Dec 06, 2012 2:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Star Trek Into Darkness |
Lenas wrote: He's playing Gary Mitchell. This movie = /fapfapfap This jives with what I've heard. |
|
| Author: | TheRiov [ Thu Dec 06, 2012 2:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
looks like a Constitution class crashing into the sea and earlier in the trailer, rising up out of the ocean? |
|
| Author: | Lenas [ Thu Dec 06, 2012 2:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Star Trek Into Darkness |
The blonde science officer in the trailer is also rumored to be Dr. Elizabeth Dehner, which would jive with the bad guy being Mitchell. |
|
| Author: | FarSky [ Thu Dec 06, 2012 3:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
So, a couple of things I noticed...all action trailers this year have the same structure (foreboding shots underneath a villainous philosophical voiceover, the **** hits the fan and things start blowing up and people are looking sad, vuvuzelas going off all over the effin' place). But what's more worrisome to me is that philosophical bent. It's as though we've internalized the idea of a war on "terror" way too much, and now villains can't simply be villains...the heroes must now fight concepts. 'The Dark Knight Rises' is the obvious entry here, but also 'The Avengers,' 'Iron Man 3,' 'Star Trek Into Darkness,' etc. That said, I loved the first one and I'm excited to see this. I don't know why everyone keeps wanting Cumberbatch to be Kahn (Kahnberbatch?). This is a brand-new timeline...Kahn doesn't matter here. There's no real wrath-ery to get worked up about. Given that I've never cared for anything 'Star Trek' (I've tried and tried, but nothing grabbed me) until the 2009 picture, I was blown away. I saw it...three times, I think? In theaters alone. It finally made the characters and world interesting. Basically, I suppose what I'm saying is that the farther from what we think of as 'Star Trek' these films get, the more I'll like them. That said, I'm trying to figure out where the line must be drawn ("Heyuhh!" No, Patrick Stewart, be quiet!) between respecting the original stuff and striking out on its own. I do know that it think it silly to treat this 'Trek' as a remake (hence my Kahnberbatch annoyance) when the sky (and beyond) is truly the limit. |
|
| Author: | Lenas [ Thu Dec 06, 2012 3:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Star Trek Into Darkness |
They seem to really respect the source material. JJ could have gone with Klingons, Borg, or some other ominous villain race, but he chose instead to use the villain from the second pilot episode of the original series. Gary Mitchell is going to be great, and we're going to see stakes raised for both Kirk (love interest) and Spock. I don't really think that Mitchell is going to represent a concept like the trailer makes it seem. He's just a normal guy that gets blasted with some space rays and begins to lose his connection to the human race after he develops god-like powers, ala Dr. Manhattan. |
|
| Author: | Midgen [ Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
that might just get me to a movie theater (for the first time in a long long time). |
|
| Author: | Aethien [ Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
FarSky wrote: {snip} That said, I'm trying to figure out where the line must be drawn ("Heyuhh!" No, Patrick Stewart, be quiet!) between respecting the original stuff and striking out on its own. I do know that it think it silly to treat this 'Trek' as a remake (hence my Kahnberbatch annoyance) when the sky (and beyond) is truly the limit. I'm waiting for the day I can dissociate this reboot from the original. I still haven't been able to make my way through the entire movie. |
|
| Author: | Talya [ Fri Dec 07, 2012 2:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Star Trek Into Darkness |
2009's Star Trek got so many things right. The cast. The drama. The dialogue. In this sense, it was perfect. This makes it so very frustrating that they got so many things terribly, terribly wrong. I'm not speaking as a star trek fan, I'm speaking as a movie fan and someone with a basic understanding of simple physics. I can accept the "Red Matter" stuff, a single-drop of which can create a black hole. (Please also note, creating a black hole a the center of a planet is no more destructive than creating one on the surface, so the whole drill bit was entirely unnecessary except as a place to have a cool fight. I can deal with that) So follow my logic, here: if a single drop can create a singularity that destroys a planet, and you smash an entire container of it into a mining ship, so now there's a black hole forming around the ship (this black hole is inexplicably two dimensional, but we'll ignore that problem) and meanwhile, the captain of this mining ship is perfectly able to have a chat with Kirk, then Enterprise decides for some reason that they need to shoot the mining ship with phasers and photon torpedos because the black hole is defying physics and not doing the job fast enough... it made no sense at all! Star Trek has always had respect for science. It didn't always get it right, but it always treated scientific theory with respect and tried to mostly play by the rules. J.J. Abrams' Trek treated science with utter contempt. Now let's consider the plot. Imagine you are Nero, captain of the mining ship, sent back in time with your advanced technology and a bunch of this red matter. I can accept you've decided to change history - history hasn't treated you well. Let's go through two possible paths you might take: (1) Dedicate your life to taking genocidal vengeance on the ancestors of the people who tried to help your planet in the first place, or... (2) Head to Romulus and give them all your advanced tech and warn them about the supernoval apocalypse coming up in a couple of centuries. Hmm. Tough choice. NOT. Not only did Nero take option one, he managed to convince his crew to go along with it. There are many other examples of idiocy in this movie, but the more I think about it, the more it pisses me off. |
|
| Author: | Pheona [ Fri Dec 07, 2012 2:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Star Trek Into Darkness |
Talya wrote: Star Trek has always had respect for science. It didn't always get it right, but it always treated scientific theory with respect and tried to mostly play by the rules. Time travel whales? |
|
| Author: | Lenas [ Fri Dec 07, 2012 3:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Star Trek Into Darkness |
They didn't shoot the ship because it wasn't getting destroyed fast enough, they had to shoot out their warp core to blast them free of the gravity field. |
|
| Author: | Talya [ Fri Dec 07, 2012 3:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Star Trek Into Darkness |
Pheona wrote: Talya wrote: Star Trek has always had respect for science. It didn't always get it right, but it always treated scientific theory with respect and tried to mostly play by the rules. Time travel whales? Time travelling whales may be silly, but they are no more disrespectful of science than the concept of Time Travel is to start with. |
|
| Author: | Talya [ Fri Dec 07, 2012 3:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Star Trek Into Darkness |
Lenas wrote: They didn't shoot the ship because it wasn't getting destroyed fast enough, they had to shoot out their warp core to blast them free of the gravity field. They fired at Nero's ship to blow it up before they started to get sucked into the black hole. (more physics problems. The gravitational pull of a black hole is based on the mass that makes it up. A black hole made of red matter and Nero's ship would have no more gravitational pull than the mass of the red matter and Nero's ship already had.) |
|
| Author: | Lenas [ Fri Dec 07, 2012 3:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Star Trek Into Darkness |
Well, sucks that you can't get past it, I guess. Best ST movie ever made, IMO. |
|
| Author: | FarSky [ Fri Dec 07, 2012 3:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Star Trek Into Darkness |
Lenas wrote: Best ST movie ever made, IMO. Easily. |
|
| Author: | Numbuk [ Fri Dec 07, 2012 3:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Star Trek Into Darkness |
Star Trek has only appeared to give a damn about physics and consistency. It's a lie that many people bought into. They will defer to real world physics and/or continuity right up until the point where the plot is not served by it any longer. This has been the case with all trek, everywhere. Proof? Answer this question: Can you or can you not beam through shields? Oh, you want a more realistic tech question? Ok. Why is the inertial dampener always affected whenever they are hit by phasers of any magnitude? This is a serious and fatal design flaw (nevermind the fact that everyone knows about it, yet there are no safety rails or goddamn seatbelts). I could seriously go on for hours about this. Star Trek is just campy, fun sci-fi who will change rules at the drop of a hat if it will serve the writer's story better (like all captains changing their mind about the prime directive at said drop of hat). Get past that, and maybe you'll enjoy the movies a bit more. Edit: Oh, and the best ST movie ever made was Galaxy Quest (even in Abrams own words!). 
|
|
| Author: | Talya [ Fri Dec 07, 2012 4:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Star Trek Into Darkness |
FarSky wrote: Lenas wrote: Best ST movie ever made, IMO. Easily. ST II, VI, and VIII would like to have a word with you. I found them much better overall. I enjoyed Star Trek (2009) when I watched it, but not to the same degree as those. ST IV, while wildly popular, was more of a comedy. Doesn't even feel like it belongs in the same series. |
|
| Author: | Lenas [ Fri Dec 07, 2012 4:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Star Trek Into Darkness |
Have seen every ST movie, and every episode of every series minus Enterprise. The last movie was the best one. |
|
| Author: | Talya [ Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Star Trek Into Darkness |
Numbuk wrote: Star Trek has only appeared to give a damn about physics and consistency. It's a lie that many people bought into. They will defer to real world physics and/or continuity right up until the point where the plot is not served by it any longer. This has been the case with all trek, everywhere. Proof? Answer this question: Can you or can you not beam through shields? Oh, you want a more realistic tech question? Ok. Why is the inertial dampener always affected whenever they are hit by phasers of any magnitude? This is a serious and fatal design flaw (nevermind the fact that everyone knows about it, yet there are no safety rails or goddamn seatbelts). I could seriously go on for hours about this. Star Trek is just campy, fun sci-fi who will change rules at the drop of a hat if it will serve the writer's story better (like all captains changing their mind about the prime directive at said drop of hat). Get past that, and maybe you'll enjoy the movies a bit more. Edit: Oh, and the best ST movie ever made was Galaxy Quest (even in Abrams own words!). A lack of consistency among writers is not the same thing as a lack of respect for science. In general, Federation technology has always been explained in a way that is scientifically plausible, even if not likely. (Even the concept of the warp drive, while it violates causality, provides a theoretically and mathematically possible way of doing so. The Alcubierre drive is still considered a theoretical possibility when speaking of space travel. What's interesting is Roddenberry and other sci-fi writers actually thought of this workaround to relativistic travel speed limits long before Michael Alcubierre mathematically showed it to theoretically possible.) |
|
| Author: | Micheal [ Fri Dec 07, 2012 6:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Still, episodes "jumped the shark" on a regular basis. What is your favorite "oh no, they didn't do that moment in the Star Trek universe? |
|
| Author: | TheRiov [ Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'm not sure you can jump the shark regularly |
|
| Page 1 of 5 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|