Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Star Trek Into Darkness [** SPOILERS FROM POST 452 **]

1…181920212224»

Comments

  • #692
    Theboinkmaster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,167 ✭✭✭Theboinkmaster


    bnt wrote: »
    Finally got to see the film this evening, and mostly enjoyed it. I liked the references to a certain previous Star Trek film along with a bit of role reversal in the events. I went in un-spoilered and haven't read all of this thread, so apologies if this has been covered before, but the climactic scenes action scenes were somewhat spolied for me by a major science blunder - or blunders:

    When the Enterprise was above the Earth, and lost power, it started falling straight down.
    - That tells me it wasn't in an orbit, but just hanging over a spot on the ground with the assistance of its anti-gravity system.
    - the first obvious question to ask is "why not enter a stable orbit?", but that's neither here nor there. I'm sure I remember that the Enterprise would enter a "standard orbit" when visiting other planets, if it was mentioned at all. I'm sure they had their reasons.
    - You can't "fall out" of a stable orbit, you just keep on going round like the International Space Station does. It would have been the safer option by far.

    So, they start falling straight down, and we're told that they must regain power or they will "incinerated".
    - first of all, that wasn't really a risk. It would have been had they been re-entering from orbit, which would have meant carrying a tremendous horizontal velocity (and thus kinetic energy) which they'd need to shed. But they weren't in orbit.
    - Every spacecraft we've sent in to orbit has had that problem - it was why the Space Shuttle's tiles were so crucial to its safe return, and why the Columbia and its crew were destroyed when they failed.
    - we already have a real-world example of a craft that falls directly down from space, and is able to survive just fine without a heat shield: SpaceShip One, the prototype for the forthcoming Virgin Galactic service. It "feathers" its wing to let the atmosphere keep its velocity from getting too high.
    - in the film, we do indeed see that the Enterprise falls almost all the way down to Earth, to cloud level. If it had been at risk of incinerating, it would have done so long before that point.

    Like I said, I haven't gone looking for spoilers, so I bet someone else on the 'Net has posted a better explanation of why that scene gets a "F" in Science. :cool:

    Dude it's a film, who gives a fvck


  • #693
    Aurora Green
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 39 ✭Aurora Green


    Theboinkmaster wrote: »
    Dude it's a film, who gives a fvck

    People who like a movie to make a minimum standard of sense care. People who expect star trek to have some level of intelligence behind the script care.


  • #694
    Nervous Wreck
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,115 ✭✭✭✭Nervous Wreck


    Aurora Green wrote: »
    People who like a movie to make a minimum standard of sense care. People who expect star trek to have some level of intelligence behind the script care.

    bnt's post was designed to stroke his own ego for being soooo clever.The trajectory of a falling spaceship is a bullshit thing to give a fuck about on the whole.


  • #695
    johnny_ultimate
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 31,116 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    Lay off the personal attacks, please. If you don't like or agree with a post, at least be civil about it.


  • #696
    SouthTippBass
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,286 ✭✭✭SouthTippBass


    bnt wrote: »
    Finally got to see the film this evening, and mostly enjoyed it. I liked the references to a certain previous Star Trek film along with a bit of role reversal in the events. I went in un-spoilered and haven't read all of this thread, so apologies if this has been covered before, but the climactic scenes action scenes were somewhat spolied for me by a major science blunder - or blunders:

    When the Enterprise was above the Earth, and lost power, it started falling straight down.
    - That tells me it wasn't in an orbit, but just hanging over a spot on the ground with the assistance of its anti-gravity system.
    - the first obvious question to ask is "why not enter a stable orbit?", but that's neither here nor there. I'm sure I remember that the Enterprise would enter a "standard orbit" when visiting other planets, if it was mentioned at all. I'm sure they had their reasons.
    - You can't "fall out" of a stable orbit, you just keep on going round like the International Space Station does. It would have been the safer option by far.

    So, they start falling straight down, and we're told that they must regain power or they will "incinerated".
    - first of all, that wasn't really a risk. It would have been had they been re-entering from orbit, which would have meant carrying a tremendous horizontal velocity (and thus kinetic energy) which they'd need to shed. But they weren't in orbit.
    - Every spacecraft we've sent in to orbit has had that problem - it was why the Space Shuttle's tiles were so crucial to its safe return, and why the Columbia and its crew were destroyed when they failed.
    - we already have a real-world example of a craft that falls directly down from space, and is able to survive just fine without a heat shield: SpaceShip One, the prototype for the forthcoming Virgin Galactic service. It "feathers" its wing to let the atmosphere keep its velocity from getting too high.
    - in the film, we do indeed see that the Enterprise falls almost all the way down to Earth, to cloud level. If it had been at risk of incinerating, it would have done so long before that point.

    Like I said, I haven't gone looking for spoilers, so I bet someone else on the 'Net has posted a better explanation of why that scene gets a "F" in Science. :cool:


    Dude, whatever you do, don't watch Armageddon.


  • Advertisement
  • #697
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 15,814 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Rewatched this a month or so back and enjoyed it just as much the second time. There are huge holes in it but none of them matter a damn as the film plays, it's not the Trek we know of old but it's damn good fun and you can't help but be swept up in it.


  • #698
    bnt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,200 ✭✭✭✭bnt


    SouthTippBass wrote: »
    Dude, whatever you do, don't watch Armageddon.
    According to some reports, new management trainees at NASA are shown Armageddon and told to take notes ... lots of notes. I remember only bits of it - mostly the scenes featuring Liv Tyler. :o

    PS some of us care about details, even in "escapist" movies, and think that Science Fiction works best when both the Science and the Fiction are well-written and consistent. I don't expect perfection - heck, I enjoyed Sunshine hugely - but given how well-understood Earth's gravity is, that blunder in ST:ID disappointed me. I didn't mind the holes in the warp drive scenes, since warp drive is, well, fiction. But I'm certainly not going to apologise for my opinion. :rolleyes:

    You are the type of what the age is searching for, and what it is afraid it has found. I am so glad that you have never done anything, never carved a statue, or painted a picture, or produced anything outside of yourself! Life has been your art. You have set yourself to music. Your days are your sonnets.

    ―Oscar Wilde predicting Social Media, in The Picture of Dorian Gray



  • #699
    Bacchus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,911 ✭✭✭Bacchus


    bnt wrote: »
    PS some of us care about details, even in "escapist" movies, and think that Science Fiction works best when both the Science and the Fiction are well-written and consistent. I don't expect perfection - heck, I enjoyed Sunshine hugely - but given how well-understood Earth's gravity is, that blunder in ST:ID disappointed me. I didn't mind the holes in the warp drive scenes, since warp drive is, well, fiction. But I'm certainly not going to apologise for my opinion. :rolleyes:

    I think the problem here is that of ALL the glaring things to pick at in this movie you pick the orbit/trajectory of the Enterprise. You're not even discussing the movie! You just seem upset that the proper laws of physics were not adhered to in that scene and you wanted to point it out to the rest of us. You don't need to apologise for your opinion btw but you can see why it would be dismissed as a trivial thing to complain about on the grand scheme of things, particularly when you don't add any other opinion on the movie.


  • #700
    norrie rugger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,656 ✭✭✭norrie rugger


    Such as stupid ****ing "Magic Blood" and inter system transporters


  • #701
    _Kaiser_
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 29,744 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    The first "reboot" film wasn't bad - in fact on repeat viewing it was actually kinda good!

    But the sequel was awful and aside from the really badly done rip and "twist" of WoK towards the end, was very little to do with Star Trek in my opinion - more "generic sci-fi shoot em up pew pew #1245"

    I thought that it was partly because I just couldn't see anyone but Shatner, Nimoy etc in these roles, but then I recently discovered this..

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJf2ovQtI6w


    Excellent stuff. Amazing production values, the leads have their characters spot-on, and the story was great - you could easily imagine it being a "genuine" sequel to the original Mirror Mirror episode of TOS. That's how you do Alternate Universes :)

    I would be happy if they close off this Alternate Universe in the 3rd film and then give us a proper follow-up to DS9/VOY-era Trek myself, but seeing as the audience probably isn't there anymore (everything has to be "dark", "gritty", "realistic" and/or a "reboot" :() I won't hold my breath..


  • Advertisement
  • #702
    Adamantium
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,563 ✭✭✭Adamantium


    _Kaiser_ wrote: »
    The first "reboot" film wasn't bad - in fact on repeat viewing it was actually kinda good!

    But the sequel was awful and aside from the really badly done rip and "twist" of WoK towards the end, was very little to do with Star Trek in my opinion - more "generic sci-fi shoot em up pew pew #1245"

    I thought that it was partly because I just couldn't see anyone but Shatner, Nimoy etc in these roles, but then I recently discovered this..

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJf2ovQtI6w


    Excellent stuff. Amazing production values, the leads have their characters spot-on, and the story was great - you could easily imagine it being a "genuine" sequel to the original Mirror Mirror episode of TOS. That's how you do Alternate Universes :)

    I would be happy if they close off this Alternate Universe in the 3rd film and then give us a proper follow-up to DS9/VOY-era Trek myself, but seeing as the audience probably isn't there anymore (everything has to be "dark", "gritty", "realistic" and/or a "reboot" :() I won't hold my breath..

    It feels like a bit of a cheap shot to collapse this alternate universe just for the sake of the old fans- but I read this in a post on FB and it made me WOW with it's brilliance
    Starfleet seeming more militaristic and so forth, 9/11 destruction of Vulcan, and Khan's continued presence in the universe, among other things, I still wonder if a startling secret about Abrams' timeline which will be suddenly revealed down the line is that it's all happening in the mirror universe and is leading to how the Federation in that reality eventually becomes the Empire. If memory serves, the mirror universe Spock once said something about not being able to prevent the deaths of his mother and father and one of those deaths has already happened in the Abrams Trek timeline.

    I quite like the allegory that was presented into ID as well, though if felt like Star Trek trying to do BSG. Stefan Molyneux said this ST felt less like a utopia and more like a fascist nightmare, look at the clothes they're all wearing on Earth. All the time we were watching something slide away, it'd be pretty badass and though provoking to realise all our complaints about ST were because of what we loved about it, getting more distorted.

    Simon Pegg has had such a theory in the past.

    Perhaps knowing what exists on the other side, they terminate their own existence and we like the "bad guys in a way" (which is inhernetly wrong if all life is sacred, who are we to decide even we're trampling around the galaxy like the Third Reich), even J.D Payne the writer on the next one hints at some sort of existential crisis/conflict.

    I say roll with it, they've dug their trench with the militarization even though they claim to make amends at the end of ID, go balls to the wall with the next one, something entirely "out there".
    Payne: "We're trying to set up a kind of situation where you really could -- and not in just an 'everything's relative' sort of moral relativism -- you could be a good person of any creed or philosophical background and come down on both sides of how you should respond to this opportunity that the crew has.... that also has some pitfalls to it. Where you could argue very, very, very compellingly that 'this' is what you should do, and if you're advocating 'this' then it's actually evil.

    It's sort of the Adam and Eve thing, where should we eat the fruit or not eat the fruit? Well, there are some very compelling reasons why they should and why they shouldn't. So, similar kinds of things here that really give the whole movie and opportunity to sort of play with that, and have people come down on different side and wrestle with it; then come to an ending where you can walk out and say, 'You know, I don't know what I would do.


  • #703
    Myrddin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 33,733 ✭✭✭✭Myrddin


    That Star Trek Continues fan-show is nothing short of incredible. I'd be a fan of all things Star Trek, but never ever took to non-canon fan-made stuff... I found it boring, predictable, & just another story/stories written by an anorak(s). 'Continues' though, changes all of that.


  • #704
    Adamantium
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,563 ✭✭✭Adamantium


    The actor who plays Kirk makes you forget you're not watching William Shatner and not the TOS at all, high praise indeed. He's got his mannerisms but somehow isn't hamming it up, he reminds me of Jack Lord of the orginal Hawaii Five O. He looks like an old school leading experienced man. Not a teenage space cadet.

    The attention to detail on recreating the sets and tone/substance of TOS is frightening


    In a time when precious little sci-fi deals with philosophical and ethical themes, and seems to be more concerned with fast pacing, constant action, and CGI effects, it's wonderful to see some refreshingly old-style focus on story, dialogue and characters, just like the original.

    When I watched I was like, why was there a reboot at all, things are fine the way they are. They could have just jumped right in continiuing and assume we know the origins (which Hollywood is ****ing OBSESSED with), that and the heroes journey.

    I only keep Abrams could maintain the look of the original trilogy for Ep VII in the way this fan production has re-created the aesthethic of TOS, with all the resources of Disney throw at him.

    Not related at all but scroll to 8:10 for the funniest blooper ever

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TpjSfFjlfc


  • #705
    Beefy78
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,166 ✭✭✭Beefy78


    bnt wrote: »
    When the Enterprise was above the Earth, and lost power, it started falling straight down.
    - That tells me it wasn't in an orbit, but just hanging over a spot on the ground with the assistance of its anti-gravity system.
    - the first obvious question to ask is "why not enter a stable orbit?", but that's neither here nor there. I'm sure I remember that the Enterprise would enter a "standard orbit" when visiting other planets, if it was mentioned at all. I'm sure they had their reasons.
    - You can't "fall out" of a stable orbit, you just keep on going round like the International Space Station does. It would have been the safer option by far.

    So, they start falling straight down, and we're told that they must regain power or they will "incinerated".
    - first of all, that wasn't really a risk. It would have been had they been re-entering from orbit, which would have meant carrying a tremendous horizontal velocity (and thus kinetic energy) which they'd need to shed. But they weren't in orbit.
    - Every spacecraft we've sent in to orbit has had that problem - it was why the Space Shuttle's tiles were so crucial to its safe return, and why the Columbia and its crew were destroyed when they failed.
    - we already have a real-world example of a craft that falls directly down from space, and is able to survive just fine without a heat shield: SpaceShip One, the prototype for the forthcoming Virgin Galactic service. It "feathers" its wing to let the atmosphere keep its velocity from getting too high.
    - in the film, we do indeed see that the Enterprise falls almost all the way down to Earth, to cloud level. If it had been at risk of incinerating, it would have done so long before that point.

    Like I said, I haven't gone looking for spoilers, so I bet someone else on the 'Net has posted a better explanation of why that scene gets a "F" in Science. :cool:

    You have put more thought into this than the writers did.

    This is a truly terrible, terrible film.

    EDIT - I LOVE the Mirror Universe idea from Adamantium's post!


  • #706
    pah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,878 ✭✭✭pah


    http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5h4ur_aSq8N5yx46vUjnNbsaQ74kcBLV

    Phase 2 is worth a watch also but continues is far superior


  • #707
    norrie rugger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,656 ✭✭✭norrie rugger


    _Kaiser_ wrote: »
    The first "reboot" film wasn't bad - in fact on repeat viewing it was actually kinda good!

    But the sequel was awful and aside from the really badly done rip and "twist" of WoK towards the end, was very little to do with Star Trek in my opinion - more "generic sci-fi shoot em up pew pew #1245"

    I thought that it was partly because I just couldn't see anyone but Shatner, Nimoy etc in these roles, but then I recently discovered this..

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJf2ovQtI6w


    Excellent stuff. Amazing production values, the leads have their characters spot-on, and the story was great - you could easily imagine it being a "genuine" sequel to the original Mirror Mirror episode of TOS. That's how you do Alternate Universes :)

    I would be happy if they close off this Alternate Universe in the 3rd film and then give us a proper follow-up to DS9/VOY-era Trek myself, but seeing as the audience probably isn't there anymore (everything has to be "dark", "gritty", "realistic" and/or a "reboot" :() I won't hold my breath..


    Holy crap, just copped that is 40 minutes long. It must have taken them forever to make it.
    Watched to the opening credits, definitely will put away time to watch the entire thing


Advertisement