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

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

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

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 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?

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

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

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 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?

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 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 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