Star Trek Into Darkness [** SPOILERS FROM POST 147 **]

FutureGuy

The first clip of the new movie has been released. Don't worry spoiler haters, it's a 3-frame clip lasting a fraction of a second which was shown on the Conan show last night.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUMf6aEE2YI

Myrddin

FFS

filmbuffboy

a bit underwhelming isnt it. but i got a good giggle from it nevertheless!

Cookie_Monster

already looks terrible

Tomk1

Video has been blocked

Goldstein

Before we get the minute long trailer later anyone care to have a lash at what might make an appearance / be revealed? I'm going to have a lash with:

Klingons, the film might even feature Kor
The "detonation" of the fleet
Funeral / death scene - incl. Pike
A "monster"
Garth of Itzar
Elba II
Antagonist demonstrating "Magic"/fantasy/Q-eske "powers"
Tacky lens flare unfortunately
Lots of running

Interesting to note too that the Russian title of the sequel is Star Trek: Vengeance. At least the Russians got the name right.

Kurn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSoIs4wfaeM

*May have been posted already

MetalDog

Blonde girl at 0:17 a possible Carol Marcus? "Little blonde technician" Wearing Science Division blue though.
Seeing as this is a reboot, will Kirk remember to put something on the end of it this time?:D

Tyron Jara

I think its about Gary Mitchell and Elizabeth Dehnerfor the TOS Where No Man Has Gone Before.

Goldstein

So then...the water



After a lot of humming and hawing I think I'm ok with the water. In fact, I think I like the fact that they put that in - firstly it's kind of badass and secondly it hints that they're thinking a bit more laterally than they did with the last one. Early days I know but still.

The Delta Flyer (after a few small modifications) is capable of submarine operation to over 600 kilometers when it dives to the center of the planet known as The Waters in the ep. 30 days. It's understood Voyager isn't capable of this feat though Voyager had few problems navigating through Fluidic space in Scorpion. Granted these events occur some 115 years in the proper universe future relative to Into Darkness but it's logical to assume the basic inherent ability has always been present for starships to at least submerge in water.

How many times have we heard "blah blah blah structural integrity is critical!" when the shields have failed and the ship is getting absolutely pounded by the Borg, weapons fire, gravity or some other massively powerful force (Even in starships 100 years older). The pressure of water at shallow depths shouln't be a problem.

As for how is the ship flying / staying in the air? Voyager could land on planets and was more than once seen flying very near the ground of a planet but it was a new ability for starships when the Intrepids were commissioned (Over 100 years in another future). Impulse engines perhaps? They were never really explained so they might allow this. Also, anti-gravity technology has always been a given with all iterations of Star Trek so it's possible that a related technology is employed albeit on a larger scale. It's credible enough within the framework of the Star Trek universe is what I've concluded. It's at least feasible enough not to be viewed as a faux pas.

As they're down there I wouldn't mind seeing what happens when they turn on the deflector, put up the shields or knock over some buildings with the tractor beam. :cool:

Myrddin

Goldstein wrote: »

After a lot of humming and hawing I think I'm ok with the water. In fact, I think I like the fact that they put that in - firstly it's kind of badass and secondly it hints that they're thinking a bit more laterally than they did with the last one. Early days I know but still

I'd agree with aspects of this, & after thinking about this overnight, I'm ok with it too. Purely because the writers seem eager to distance themselves from established Star Trek, & free themselves of its constraints. I think thats very positive, Star Trek as we knew it is long gone, maybe this incarnation, will establish itself for different reasons & even for trying, they should be commended.

The Delta Flyer (after a few small modifications) is capable of submarine operation to over 600 kilometers when it dives to the center of the planet known as The Waters in the ep. 30 days. It's understood Voyager isn't capable of this feat though Voyager had few problems navigating through Fluidic space in Scorpion. Granted these events occur some 115 years in the proper universe future relative to Into Darkness but it's logical to assume the basic inherent ability has always been present for starships to at least submerge in water.

I'd also agree water should/would be no problem, its the willy nilly flying in space/crash into ocean/take off from ocean/fly into space thing that stood out for me. There's a scene later on in the film where you see what 'looks like' a JJ Connie crashing down into a lake/river/sea, & I presumed the above was it taking off again? Maybe I'm wrong, but if I'm right, cmon like. The delta flyer is a shuttle, the Enterprise is a constitution class starship...in established cannon it would burn up in the atmosphere of a planet, not be able to land in the sea! But its too hard to get context from a trailer, maybe the two 'water' scenes are unrelated. Time will tell!

As you also said, the Delta flyer is over a century newer, with Borg enhancements...it should be able to do things that larger ships can't, it'd run rings around them at slower speeds etc. I'd say your right in that it would be safe to assume Starships could submerge in water, its the getting down to the water that was always the problem. But lets wait & see.

The pressure of water at shallow depths shouln't be a problem.

Agreed, & it wouldn't be. Its the atmospheric entry, but we are indeed getting super nerdy here

It's credible enough within the framework of the Star Trek universe is what I've concluded. It's at least feasible enough not to be viewed as a faux pas.

I definitely would disagree with that, flying about in air I definitely would, thats purely impulse power, but to imagine starships willy nilly landing through an atmosphere, into water, & back up again flys in the face of established canon for me. Though I do agree, for the sakes of a reboot, this is definitely something to look past, this is just what happens now, so lets accept it & move on. Yes the Enterprise-D saucer section survived a re-entry, but it was wrecked by not having the ability to land. The Enterprise 1701 burned up in the atmopshere of the genesis planet too





In another way, I'm really looking forward to this film, & after seeing the trailer, I'm feeling hopeful this film will surpass the last, & even the last one was brilliant!

Kiith

Both of the above images are of ships crashing though, rather than a controlled descent. If a ship is fully powered, i don't see why it wouldn't be able to land.

Given my limited knowledge of star trek physics that is :P

Myrddin

Kiith wrote: »

Both of the above images are of ships crashing though, rather than a controlled descent. If a ship is fully powered, i don't see why it wouldn't be able to land.

You call this a controlled descent?

Myrddin

Kiith wrote: »

If a ship is fully powered, i don't see why it wouldn't be able to land

Also that in itself is actually true to my knowledge aswell, I think in later era's like TNG etc, the only thing that would stop a ship from landing would be the actual lack of landing struts.

Sisko once took the Defiant into the atmosphere of a Jupiter'esque planet & said to O'Brien "I'm taking the ship into the atmosphere. I know she wasn't designed for it but I think the ship can handle it".

But definitely not in the TOS era, how many times was it mentioned about burning up etc, plus no landing struts.

But anyway, this is real nit picking...I'm sure this film will be all kinds of awesome

knucklehead6

EnterNow wrote: »

Also that in itself is actually true to my knowledge aswell, I think in later era's like TNG etc, the only thing that would stop a ship from landing would be the actual lack of landing struts.

Sisko once took the Defiant into the atmosphere of a Jupiter'esque planet & said to O'Brien "I'm taking the ship into the atmosphere. I know she wasn't designed for it but I think the ship can handle it".

But definitely not in the TOS era, how many times was it mentioned about burning up etc, plus no landing struts.

But anyway, this is real nit picking...I'm sure this film will be all kinds of awesome

Didn't TOS have an episode where the enterprise was intercepted by an F104 in a time travel ep?

Tomorrow is Yesterday according to Mem Alpha

seamus

I don't think it was ever established that a ship couldn't enter the atmosphere (which is effectively a low orbit), just that they had no facility to land.

Physically, there's no reason why even a Galaxy-class ship can't enter the atmosphere. "Burning up" is only an issue when you're travelling at a high speed relatively. If the descent is slow and controlled (up to about 3,000km/h), then the heating effect from the air may be negligible.

Of course, there is a question whether ships designed for space travel have the propulsion systems to maintain a stable flight when you take gravity and wind resistance into account, but if a shuttle with standard nacells has no issue with it then I see no reason why smaller ships like the Enterprise can't either.

With water your main issue is pressure, where even at 1m depth the water pressure is way above the pressure in space (the pressure would actually be the atmosphere inside the ship pushing outwards). But as mentioned above if the ships are built to withstand a certain amount of bombardment without completely falling apart, then it's safe to assume that they could withstand the relatively minor pressures in shallow water.

I do like that there seems to be a lot of this movie set actually on earth. I always thought in the star trek universe that there was a very limited amount of exposure of earth, of what the earth of the future actually looked like. OK, it's called Star Trek, but even so, aside from a few long shots of San Francisco, there was very little else given away about what earth looked like. Voyager is the one that had about the most earthtime (the episode with Kim and the alternate timeline), but that actually just looked like a very clean disneyland.
TNG episodes set on earth were either actually set in the past, or set in locations that looked like the 17th century - The vineyard in France, Crusher's grandmother's place in Scotland and Cambridge University.

Myrddin

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Didn't TOS have an episode where the enterprise was intercepted by an F104 in a time travel ep?

Tomorrow is Yesterday according to Mem Alpha

Actually, your dead right. Good call! However, as mentioned, it was a controlled descent in that case & certainly never crashed into water like the above pic.

I wonder if the ship crashing into the water above, is the same one thats rising again as seen earlier? If its not, and is just a ship crashing, then this whole conversation is nullified so till then we can only speculate

Myrddin

seamus wrote: »

Voyager is the one that had about the most earthtime (the episode with Kim and the alternate timeline)

The DS9 two parter where Sisko is temp assigned to Earth?

Kiith

EnterNow wrote: »

I'll be this is the first time Uhura takes the helm :pac:

knucklehead6

EnterNow wrote: »

Actually, your dead right. Good call! However, as mentioned, it was a controlled descent in that case & certainly never crashed into water like the above pic.

I wonder if the ship crashing into the water above, is the same one thats rising again as seen earlier? If its not, and is just a ship crashing, then this whole conversation is nullified so till then we can only speculate

Donning my tin foil speculation hat, the JJ-connie we see impacting the water looks uncontrolled.... it also looks like it's close to an urban shore in shallow water.... which could have resulted in the damage implied in the poster.

It also allows for the 'detonating' the fleet. (probably meant to say drenching or drowning!!)

Kirk then takes JJ-Enterprise into a controlled descent hiding his ship amongst the wreckage of the rest of the fleet underwater. And then surfaces when the time is right

Myrddin

Proving canon certainly does allow for at least a Constitution class to enter the atmosphere of a planet, in a controlled manner anyway

Myrddin

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Donning my tin foil speculation hat, the JJ-connie we see impacting the water looks uncontrolled.... it also looks like it's close to an urban shore in shallow water.... which could have resulted in the damage implied in the poster.

It also allows for the 'detonating' the fleet. (probably meant to say drenching or drowning!!)

Kirk then takes JJ-Enterprise into a controlled descent hiding his ship amongst the wreckage of the rest of the fleet underwater. And then surfaces when the time is right

Mr. Abrahms? Very nice speculation there, it sounds like a very possible plot...

Goldstein

Controlled re-entry is the key here. Any instance of a ship ever "burning up" or having thermal issues entering an atmosphere is purely due to a loss of control/power. Legomen and even hundreds of paper aeroplanes have successfully re-entered our own atmosphere and landed without issue. There's no question of a starship ever having problems entering an atmosphere barring dome catastrophic failure. Everything ship-related we see in the trailer appears sound with basic physics/Star Trek canon.

The ship crashing isn't the Enterprise. The ship surfacing does appear to be the Enterprise. I've analysed the 1080p Slow-mo but the registry number is very hard to conclusively discern. It looks like "17xx" but in other frames it could be "24..". My money's on it being 1701.

Goldstein

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Kirk then takes JJ-Enterprise into a controlled descent hiding his ship amongst the wreckage of the rest of the fleet underwater. And then surfaces when the time is right

Ah yes, the old Qualor II Surplus Depot Z15 gambit

The Black Oil

Did the Enterprise forget to pay its ESB bill? ^^

Cookie_Monster

don't forget in this version of Trek the Ent was built on earth so certainly would have atmospheric capability. Ship yard on earth, it would need to be able to launch and land for repair / refit at a later date.

Myrddin

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

don't forget in this version of Trek the Ent was built on earth so certainly would have atmospheric capability. Ship yard on earth, it would need to be able to launch and land for repair / refit at a later date.

Yep I think we're all satisfied at this stage, what the trailer shows is ok in terms of what we've seen before. But if indeed that is the Enterprise crashing into the sea, & rising again...thats definitely stretching it for me...but lets wait & see.

FutureGuy

EnterNow wrote: »

Yep I think we're all satisfied at this stage, what the trailer shows is ok in terms of what we've seen before. But if indeed that is the Enterprise crashing into the sea, & rising again...thats definitely stretching it for me...but lets wait & see.

It is the Enterprise rising, which was hidden under the ocean for a tactical reason a the start of the film. The ship crashing into the water is definitely not the Enterprise as it is a different class of starship.

Myrddin

FutureGuy wrote: »

It is the Enterprise rising, which was hidden under the ocean for a tactical reason a the start of the film. The ship crashing into the water is definitely not the Enterprise as it is a different class of starship.

Well thats fine then, if it were the same ship I think its asks questions but looks like its not an issue so. How do you know this?

FutureGuy

EnterNow wrote: »

Well thats fine then, if it were the same ship I think its asks questions but looks like its not an issue so. How do you know this?

The first 9 minutes of the film have been shown to journalists and leaked online in text form. The Enterprise is underwater to avoid detection while on a mission.

Cookie_Monster

FutureGuy wrote: »

The first 9 minutes of the film have been shown to journalists and leaked online in text form. The Enterprise is underwater to avoid detection while on a mission.

:rolleyes:

Kiith

So they are actual confirmed spoilers for the film, rather than just guesses? Bah, didn't want to know any of that

Goodshape

Kiith wrote: »

So they are actual confirmed spoilers for the film, rather than just guesses? Bah, didn't want to know any of that

On the other hand it shows that an awful lot of what we've been scrutinizing and chatting about so far, from the trailer etc., occurs in the first 9 minutes of the film. So still plenty to be revealed.

Can't forget this is JJ 'LOST' Abrams behind this. Wouldn't be surprised if we're being led up the garden path to some extent about the plot / villains.

Sad Professor

Full teaser trailer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5gdbUC9mWU

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/paramount/startrekintodarkness/

FutureGuy

Lads one of the shots may have given the main plot away.

it looks like we are looking at coffins... They are cryochambers. Like Botany Bay.

Myrddin

FutureGuy wrote: »

Lads one of the shots may have given the main plot away.

it looks like we are looking at coffins... They are cryochambers. Like Botany Bay.

I had the exact same thought, they look like

stasis pods

to me

Kurn

Just saw the hobbit in iMax, at the start they showed 6-7 minutes of star trek, audience getting worried they were in wrong movie, looks good

Cookie_Monster

so it's Reliant hitting the water then

Kiith

Saw the Hobbit today, and they showed the first 9 minutes.

I waited in the lobby. No way in hell i was watching it.

Woden

Yeah saw the hobbit last night. Watched the preview/prologue whatever it was. Enjoyed it!

Masked Man

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxZcxkFZZP0

SarahBM

SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO EXCITED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think it looks awsome!

Goodshape

CRASH! BOOM! POW! SPACEPLOSION!!


meh.



Saw that new teaser in front of Oz in IMAX last weekend. Looks totally uninspired. Looked as "Star Trek" as Lost in Space or some other muck. Hope there's more to the film than that.

Didn't help that a new Superman / Man of Steel trailer was on just before it. Much better looking crash, boom, pow, etc.

Myrddin

Have to say I agree, another CG fest with CG spolsions & CG jumps off of CG cliffs into a land of CG. Hopefully there's a more engaging aspect of the film, because I'm at breaking point with these CG 'gasm blockbusters.

iDave

The fact that Vulcan doesnt exist anymore adds the the 'meh' aspect of this film. Removing Vulcan from the history of the UFP is like removing France from the history of the EU.

SarahBM

but I like CGI

Myrddin

SarahBM wrote: »

but I like CGI

I'm perfectly fine with CG effects, Terminator 2 for instance is one of my favourite films. There was a perfect blend of CG effects, with live action effects, miniatures & all the other tools needed...& the results still hold up today {for the most part}. But nowadays, its CG characters, CG landscapes, CG explosions, CG blood, CG this CD that...its so overused that literally everything you see on screen is quite apparently fake. Its become quite frankly, downright boring.

I watched Alien & Aliens there recently, real sets, real people, incredible model work, miniatures, live action - it still stands up to this day when you look at it. When your watching it, your there on LV426 * fully immersed in the film. When you watch Avatar in comparison, at no point do you feel like your actuall on Pandora, nor does it feel like Pandora is a real place

SarahBM

I hated Alien *ducks for cover*

Perhaps just wait til you have seen the actual entire film before judging it. did you like Star Trek XI?

love your avatar btw

Myrddin

SarahBM wrote: »

I hated Alien *ducks for cover*

Let me guess, your under 21? Did you like Aliens?

Perhaps just wait til you have seen the actual entire film before judging it. did you like Star Trek XI?

Aye, sure its impossible to judge from what we've seen so far. What does stand out in the trailers though, is that its one CG landscape & scene after the next. The lava parts just scream Mustafar from Episode 3 {Star Wars}

love your avatar btw

Ah see now you've totally redeemed yourself after your Alien comment

seamus

EnterNow wrote: »

Let me guess, your under 21? Did you like Aliens?

Admittedly I wasn't crazy about Alien either, I much preferred Aliens. From watching in more recent years, I realise this was because I was far too young watching the original (probably 10 or 12) and so I had difficulty following the story. I think I may have also seen Aliens first, so when I saw Alien, one of my first thoughts was, "What, only one Alien?"

Myrddin

seamus wrote: »

Admittedly I wasn't crazy about Alien either, I much preferred Aliens. From watching in more recent years, I realise this was because I was far too young watching the original (probably 10 or 12) and so I had difficulty following the story. I think I may have also seen Aliens first, so when I saw Alien, one of my first thoughts was, "What, only one Alien?"

Well films aside, the reason I brought both Alien & Aliens up was a measure of how well they've stood the test of time, based on the quality of their special effects. In comparison, I watched Star Trek XI, Avatar, [insert recent blockbuster here] & effects wise its all just meh. After watching Alien & Aliens recently, I kept getting distracted thinking "Most of these sets are actually real, they were built by people, Ripley is actually there, facing a 16 foot Alien Queen...look how f**king amazing it looks!" whereas with modern ones, I see past the effects straight away and see only this



CG is relied on far, far too much for my liking. Sure its cost effective, & you can do things otherwise impossible...but its used for the most mundane things these days, practical effects stand out so much better. A nice blend of both, a la Terminator 2 type stuff is the perfect balance.

Regards Alien & Aliens, I think I like them both equally. Alien has that tense, claustrophobic, being picked off one by one feel. Aliens, has the foreboding LV426, the incredible model & set builds, & the third act is a masterpiece of sci-fi action