RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,130
Posts: 5,433,509
Members: 24,933
Currently online: 553
Newest member: karanfree

TrekToday headlines

Pine In New Skit
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

Stewart In Holiday Film
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

The Red Shirt Diaries #8
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

IDW Publishing January Comics
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Yelchin In New Indie Thriller
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Saldana In The Book of Life
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Cracked’s New Sci-Fi Satire
By: T'Bonz on Oct 16


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

View Poll Results: Grade the movie...
A+ 144 19.23%
A 161 21.50%
A- 101 13.48%
B+ 83 11.08%
B 59 7.88%
B- 27 3.60%
C+ 40 5.34%
C 38 5.07%
C- 25 3.34%
D+ 11 1.47%
D 13 1.74%
D- 10 1.34%
F 37 4.94%
Voters: 749. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 6 2013, 04:51 PM   #4096
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post
That's not so, because what's meant by "apparent reason" with regard to plot isn't a question of whether something can be defended in real world terms.
I'm not trying to define it based on real world terms. I'm defining based on what has been established previously in the "universe".


The "apparent reason" that Enterprise needs to surface is because they need to be in the air over the volcano for the transporter to work properly, and they've been submerged to hide from the locals. All of that is explicitly set up and stated.
The reason they need to surface is explained. What they don't explain is why they needed to hide a starship there to begin with. How they got down there without being noticed by the populace? Why they didn't use shuttlecarft for both ends of the mission?

It is one of the absolute coolest scenes in all of Star Trek. But I think it constitutes a plot-hole because it violates the rules of the universe and ignores the capabilities of the Enterprise as defined in these movies. YMMV.
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 04:53 PM   #4097
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post

Logic is built from premises. The premises established here are that Enterprise has to hide from the locals in order to obey the PD, and that the locals are presumably unable to detect the ship under water. So, it's logical to hide the ship under water.
Unless the locals have a way to observe a starship in orbit, it's illogical not to hide it there.
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 05:00 PM   #4098
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

BillJ wrote: View Post
Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post

Logic is built from premises. The premises established here are that Enterprise has to hide from the locals in order to obey the PD, and that the locals are presumably unable to detect the ship under water. So, it's logical to hide the ship under water.
Unless the locals have a way to observe a starship in orbit, it's illogical not to hide it there.
No. It's not required that the filmmakers explain why an option presumed to exist isn't utilized, though it might be nice for fans familiar with previous Star Trek history.

BillJ wrote: View Post
But I think it constitutes a plot-hole because it violates the rules of the universe and ignores the capabilities of the Enterprise as defined in these movies.
These are all rules defined elsewhere, not within the plot of the movie. Therefore, while it may be annoying it's still not a plot hole since it doesn't violate the logic of events in the movie.

Having submerged the ship at the opening of the movie, if later in the story there'd been a good reason to take the ship underwater and they chose not to because "it's impossible for the Enterprise to submerge," that would have been a plot hole.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 05:03 PM   #4099
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Maybe the locals had primitive telescopes and could see the ship in orbit ? I wonder how Kirk thought he could sneak the Enterprise out of the water when all was said and done without getting spotted.
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 05:05 PM   #4100
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post

No. It's not required that the filmmakers explain why an option presumed to exist isn't utilized, though it might be nice.
Of all the flaws that exist in this film, this is simply the one I cannot come up with a "Trek-explanation" for. It's fucking cool, I've drooled every single time I've seen the movie. But every time I leave, it's the one thing that I reflect on that makes zero sense.
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 05:08 PM   #4101
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post
These are all rules defined elsewhere, not within the plot of the movie. Therefore, while it may be annoying it's still not a plot hole since it doesn't violate the logic of events in the movie.
I think it is because we see in the very same sequence two different means of travel that doesn't require hiding a starship underwater.
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 05:09 PM   #4102
Ovation
Vice Admiral
 
Location: La Belle Province or The Green Mountain State (depends on the day of the week)
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

BillJ wrote: View Post
Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post

No. It's not required that the filmmakers explain why an option presumed to exist isn't utilized, though it might be nice.
Of all the flaws that exist in this film, this is simply the one I cannot come up with a "Trek-explanation" for. It's fucking cool, I've drooled every single time I've seen the movie. But every time I leave, it's the one thing that I reflect on that makes zero sense.
Perhaps [Trekkie hat] the same thing that prevents anything other than a line of sight beam out somehow interferes with the sensors of the ship at any distance greater than where they are parked underwater.[/Trekkie hat] That we don't see/hear that discussion is because we pick up the "adventure" in mid-stride. Had it been a self-contained episode shown from its beginning, I suspect such an explanation (or something similar) would have been part of the conversation. Again, this is something I can work out for myself without needing an explicit statement from a character (much like the way I don't get worked up about not being shown transit travel between two points when "speed of plot" is employed). YMMV
Ovation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 05:14 PM   #4103
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Right. Personally I hope the next movie also starts mid-adventure. It gives us the impression that they are doing something between movies, which wasn't the case for the previous ones.

TMP was justified and in III and IV also, but in II, V and VI for some reason they are just dicking around waiting for a mission.
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 05:44 PM   #4104
indranee
Vice Admiral
 
indranee's Avatar
 
Location: Warrrrrrrrrshington, DC
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

BillJ wrote: View Post
Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post
That's not so, because what's meant by "apparent reason" with regard to plot isn't a question of whether something can be defended in real world terms.
I'm not trying to define it based on real world terms. I'm defining based on what has been established previously in the "universe".


The "apparent reason" that Enterprise needs to surface is because they need to be in the air over the volcano for the transporter to work properly, and they've been submerged to hide from the locals. All of that is explicitly set up and stated.
The reason they need to surface is explained. What they don't explain is why they needed to hide a starship there to begin with. How they got down there without being noticed by the populace? Why they didn't use shuttlecarft for both ends of the mission?

It is one of the absolute coolest scenes in all of Star Trek. But I think it constitutes a plot-hole because it violates the rules of the universe and ignores the capabilities of the Enterprise as defined in these movies. YMMV.
Speaking of shuttlecraft? What happened to the one Sulu and Uhura ditched? The natives didn't see that hunka chunka burning up their precious atmosphere? No violation of the PD there, huh?
indranee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 06:20 PM   #4105
KittyDuran
Lieutenant Commander
 
KittyDuran's Avatar
 
Location: Hungry (like the wolf)
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

indranee wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post
That's not so, because what's meant by "apparent reason" with regard to plot isn't a question of whether something can be defended in real world terms.
I'm not trying to define it based on real world terms. I'm defining based on what has been established previously in the "universe".


The "apparent reason" that Enterprise needs to surface is because they need to be in the air over the volcano for the transporter to work properly, and they've been submerged to hide from the locals. All of that is explicitly set up and stated.
The reason they need to surface is explained. What they don't explain is why they needed to hide a starship there to begin with. How they got down there without being noticed by the populace? Why they didn't use shuttlecarft for both ends of the mission?

It is one of the absolute coolest scenes in all of Star Trek. But I think it constitutes a plot-hole because it violates the rules of the universe and ignores the capabilities of the Enterprise as defined in these movies. YMMV.
Speaking of shuttlecraft? What happened to the one Sulu and Uhura ditched? The natives didn't see that hunka chunka burning up their precious atmosphere? No violation of the PD there, huh?
They might have ditched it on the other side away from the locals (who it seemed were only on one flank of the volcano - that Kirk and McCoy were "luring" them out of the kill-zone).

About the starship underwater... I just assumed that they somehow warped into the ocean like the Enterprise did into the atmosphere of Titan in ST09 then rising out of the clouds in front of Saturn. Anyhow, that is my unscientific take... .
KittyDuran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 06:21 PM   #4106
Shazam!
Rear Admiral
 
Shazam!'s Avatar
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post
The premises established here is that Enterprise has to hide from the locals in order to obey the PD, and that the locals are presumably unable to detect the ship under water. So, it's logical to hide the ship under water.
Presumably they are unable to detect it in space. It's logical to hide it in space. More so, given the established primitive nature of the locals (they're more likely to take a swim than fly into space).

Admiral Buzzkill wrote:
]It shouldn't need to be said that challenging anything as being an "impossible event" is completely meaningless in Star Trek or most other fantasy movies.
Why most and not all? Challenging anything in any movie can be meaningless but there is enjoyment to be had in discussing it although I am talking to Buzzkill..
Shazam! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 06:24 PM   #4107
Shazam!
Rear Admiral
 
Shazam!'s Avatar
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

KittyDuran wrote: View Post
About the starship underwater... I just assumed that they somehow warped into the ocean like the Enterprise did into the atmosphere of Titan in ST09 then rising out of the clouds in front of Saturn. Anyhow, that is my unscientific take... .
And caused a tsunami the size of the USS Vengeance.

Given the casual nature of transporter technology I'd be more inclined to believe that they beamed the Enterprise down there. Scotty did it with some hand waving over a console.
Shazam! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 06:34 PM   #4108
AnnLouise
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Location: Wisconsin
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Yeah. Performance quality and charisma are mutually exclusive.

I think Cumby gave a fantastic performance, but his Khan was no where near as charismatic as Monty's
He gave a great performance as somebody named "John Harrison" as far as that went. But as Khan, not so much. Even if the characters in this timeline know squat about who he is, the audience sure does, and I hoped to see some elements of Khan from TWOK presented in a new way. Why carryover the name if it adds nothing to the story?

Oh, and I still don't understand when Khan and the Admiral fell out.
__________________
(it is) in the denial of moral choices that we commit our worst offences.
Matthew Scully
AnnLouise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 06:36 PM   #4109
KittyDuran
Lieutenant Commander
 
KittyDuran's Avatar
 
Location: Hungry (like the wolf)
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Shazam! wrote: View Post
Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post
The premises established here is that Enterprise has to hide from the locals in order to obey the PD, and that the locals are presumably unable to detect the ship under water. So, it's logical to hide the ship under water.
Presumably they are unable to detect it in space. It's logical to hide it in space. More so, given the established primitive nature of the locals (they're more likely to take a swim than fly into space).

It shouldn't need to be said that challenging anything as being an "impossible event" is completely meaningless in Star Trek or most other fantasy movies.
Why most and not all? Challenging anything in any movie is meaningless but there is enjoyment to be had in discussing it although I guess that means nothing to you, Buzzkill.
Personally, I don't get any enjoyment only a headache! There are times I wish I could avoid discussions of this sort - but I love Star Trek and need to get my fix. I can't watch a movie and breakdown every nuance and feel good. Just like for me going to baseball games - I can't enjoy myself if I had to think about every stat. It too much like work!
KittyDuran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 06:37 PM   #4110
KittyDuran
Lieutenant Commander
 
KittyDuran's Avatar
 
Location: Hungry (like the wolf)
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Shazam! wrote: View Post
KittyDuran wrote: View Post
About the starship underwater... I just assumed that they somehow warped into the ocean like the Enterprise did into the atmosphere of Titan in ST09 then rising out of the clouds in front of Saturn. Anyhow, that is my unscientific take... .
And caused a tsunami the size of the USS Vengeance.

Given the casual nature of transporter technology I'd be more inclined to believe that they beamed the Enterprise down there. Scotty did it with some hand waving over a console.
and b*tching every step of the way!!!
KittyDuran is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
benedict cumberbatch, grading & discussion, jj abrams

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:11 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.