RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,584
Posts: 5,515,262
Members: 25,156
Currently online: 464
Newest member: jerrlaro

TrekToday headlines

Two New Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Dec 26

Captain Kirk’s Boldest Missions
By: T'Bonz on Dec 25

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18


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 19.20%
A 161 21.47%
A- 101 13.47%
B+ 83 11.07%
B 59 7.87%
B- 27 3.60%
C+ 40 5.33%
C 38 5.07%
C- 25 3.33%
D+ 11 1.47%
D 13 1.73%
D- 10 1.33%
F 38 5.07%
Voters: 750. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 17 2013, 10:47 PM   #4786
Set Harth
Rear Admiral
 
Set Harth's Avatar
 
Location: Distant Thunder
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

We see from ST09 that he gets the main idea.
__________________
Do you know what this is? What this means?
Set Harth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17 2013, 10:57 PM   #4787
Ln X
Fleet Captain
 
Ln X's Avatar
 
Location: The great gig in the sky
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

BillJ wrote: View Post
neoworx wrote: View Post
Shocker I won't be buying the DVD which makes this the first Star Trek movie EVER that I won't own.

Here's my take on the DVD: The 800 Pound Gorilla
I disagree with your blog.

The transwarp transporter makes starships no more obsolete than the transporter makes shuttles obsolete.
The transwarp transporter is a bit like the Iconian Gateway. If it can really take objects and people from A to B, in the galaxy, in a blink of an eye then it considerably reduces the purposes of starships. The transwarp transporter is not only capable of working across large distances, but it can probably beam through shields and target objects moving at high velocity.

With a large enough transwarp transporter it could probably transport whole ships from A to B. Enemy ships attacking the Federation? Beam them into the centres of stars. Want to send a starship hundreds of light years away? Transport it! The transwarp transporter is a device as potent as warp drive for totally revolutionizing a civilization. I'm surprised the Federation is not fully utilising its potential in the JJ universe.
__________________
Star Trek: The Approaching Shadow...

Caption contest: DS9
Ln X is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17 2013, 10:59 PM   #4788
Santa Claus
Digitally Assisted
 
Santa Claus's Avatar
 
Location: J. Allen's Rooftop
Send a message via ICQ to Santa Claus Send a message via AIM to Santa Claus Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Santa Claus Send a message via Yahoo to Santa Claus
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Ln X wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
neoworx wrote: View Post
Shocker I won't be buying the DVD which makes this the first Star Trek movie EVER that I won't own.

Here's my take on the DVD: The 800 Pound Gorilla
I disagree with your blog.

The transwarp transporter makes starships no more obsolete than the transporter makes shuttles obsolete.
The transwarp transporter is a bit like the Iconian Gateway. If it can really take objects and people from A to B, in the galaxy, in a blink of an eye then it considerably reduces the purposes of starships. The transwarp transporter is not only capable of working across large distances, but it can probably beam through shields and target objects moving at high velocity.

With a large enough transwarp transporter it could probably transport whole ships from A to B. Enemy ships attacking the Federation? Beam them into the centres of stars. Want to send a starship hundreds of light years away? Transport it! The transwarp transporter is a device as potent as warp drive for totally revolutionizing a civilization. I'm surprised the Federation is not fully utilising its potential in the JJ universe.
That's the thing, though. In the Prime universe, this same type of technology exists, yet is never or only seldom used.
__________________

❄ A Joyful Holiday Season to You All! ❄

Santa Claus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17 2013, 10:59 PM   #4789
Therin of Andor
Admiral
 
Therin of Andor's Avatar
 
Location: New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
View Therin of Andor's Twitter Profile
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

neoworx wrote: View Post
While I can't speak for others, I have never claimed that NuTrek doesn't ALLOW us to think. I've said it doesn't it LIKE IT when we think, because then nothing makes sense.
You mean like how the "Genesis Wave" works, and how Spock was resurrected, and how they saved the whales, and how they got the centre of the universe so fast, and how Klingons have pink blood?
__________________
Thiptho lapth! Ian (Entire post is personal opinion)
The Andor Files @ http://andorfiles.blogspot.com/
http://therinofandor.blogspot.com/
Therin of Andor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17 2013, 11:03 PM   #4790
Ln X
Fleet Captain
 
Ln X's Avatar
 
Location: The great gig in the sky
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
^You do know that TNG used a similar "subspace transporter" for exactly one episode ("Bloodlines") and then completely forgot about it?

And that transwarp beaming was written out of Trek (in this timeline at least) in this film anyway - confiscated from Scotty by Section 31 whose R+D facility in London was then destroyed.
This is Section 31 we're talking about and since Khan stole a transwarp transporter device, it could very be likely that Section 31 made duplicates. Heck if they could make a virus which the Founders could not cure then Section 31 seems very capable at reverse engineering technologies and coming up with new ones.

Also I'm sure they have other top secret R 'n' D facilities out there. If they did duplicate the transwarp transporter device then Section 31 must have scattered their stockpile of these devices.

Something about not placing all your eggs in one basket...
__________________
Star Trek: The Approaching Shadow...

Caption contest: DS9
Ln X is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17 2013, 11:09 PM   #4791
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

All I know is that if transwarp beaming makes starships obsolete in the Abramsverse, then the way the regular transporter is used in the Prime timeline should make death obsolete.
__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17 2013, 11:11 PM   #4792
Ru ru, chu
Fleet Admiral
 
Ru ru, chu's Avatar
 
Location: Mr. Laser Beam is in the visitor's bullpen
View Ru ru, chu's Twitter Profile
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

The Keeper wrote: View Post
Because S31 confiscated it then made its use by anyone else illegal?
They are hardly in a position to do that, because Section 31 is not actually part of the government. They're a criminal conspiracy, a rogue element. Nothing more.

And on a totally unrelated matter: I found another TOS character reference. It's displayed on the readout screens in Kirk's hospital room at the end of the film.

__________________
"A hot dog at the ballpark is better than a steak at the Ritz." - Humphrey Bogart

Last edited by Ru ru, chu; September 17 2013 at 11:43 PM.
Ru ru, chu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18 2013, 12:34 AM   #4793
Noname Given
Vice Admiral
 
Location: None Given
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

gazomg wrote: View Post
I enjoyed it as your standard action movie with the usual cliches and typical scenes, and it was a good production nice effects etc, but as a trek film it was poor
Or do you mean "If you define Star Trek as what was shown in the TNG era - it was poor..."?

I ask because as someone who what 'Star Trek' first run on NBC in the 1960ies - it was more 'Star Trek' then ANYTHING done in the TNG era. They nailed the TOS era well in both the 2009 film and STID. (IMO)
Noname Given is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18 2013, 12:44 AM   #4794
doubleohfive
Fleet Admiral
 
doubleohfive's Avatar
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Mr. Laser Beam wrote: View Post
The Keeper wrote: View Post
Because S31 confiscated it then made its use by anyone else illegal?
They are hardly in a position to do that, because Section 31 is not actually part of the government. They're a criminal conspiracy, a rogue element. Nothing more.
In Star Trek Into Darkness, Admiral Marcus freely tells his collected cadre of Starship commanders that it (Section 31) is essentially Starfleet's intelligence division.

Now, you could argue that "Oh, Marcus only said that because he knew Khan would show up to kill all of them," but as I recall, Marcus and Khan weren't exactly working together anymore and it was Kirk who figured it out mere moments before Khan showed up in his little fighter to blast away Pike and everyone else. So clearly even if Marcus threw 31 under the bus to explain away Khan, its a big "tell" that all those starship captains now know about it if all the organization is happens to be a criminal element.

How then, do you qualify Section 31 a "criminal conspiracy" and "nothing more" when it's been established that it was part of the Federation charter and in this very film as being entirely legit?
doubleohfive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18 2013, 05:29 AM   #4795
Ru ru, chu
Fleet Admiral
 
Ru ru, chu's Avatar
 
Location: Mr. Laser Beam is in the visitor's bullpen
View Ru ru, chu's Twitter Profile
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

^ I do happen to agree that Marcus only spilled the beans to those officers (and, in that other scene in Marcus' office, Kirk himself) because he knew they were about to die. I do believe Marcus agreed to that attack and knew Khan would show up and kill them all.
Marcus did conveniently survive, after all.

Besides, Starfleet already has an intelligence division. It's called...wait for it...Starfleet Intelligence.
__________________
"A hot dog at the ballpark is better than a steak at the Ritz." - Humphrey Bogart
Ru ru, chu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18 2013, 05:52 AM   #4796
MauriceNavidad
Vice Admiral
 
MauriceNavidad's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
View MauriceNavidad's Twitter Profile
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Mr. Laser Beam wrote: View Post
^ I do happen to agree that Marcus only spilled the beans to those officers (and, in that other scene in Marcus' office, Kirk himself) because he knew they were about to die. I do believe Marcus agreed to that attack and knew Khan would show up and kill them all.
Marcus did conveniently survive, after all.
  1. Section 31 blowed up
  2. Marcus' meeting with captains and first officers get shot to Hell
  3. "Harrison" beams to Q'onos
  4. Scotty discovers the transwarp beaming gizmo in the scoutship wreck
  5. Kirk runs to Marcus with this news
  6. Marcus spills the beams about Section 31
  7. Enterprise heads out

__________________
* * *
Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip.
― Winston S. Churchill
MauriceNavidad is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 18 2013, 04:08 PM   #4797
suarezguy
Commodore
 
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Set Harth wrote: View Post
C&DfD wrote:
The concern-trolling about the BluRays by the slow ponies who were "appalled" by how Paramount treated its fans was particularly pathetic. "Starfleet is about exploration," they whine. Exploration doesn't mean lack of conflict. Lack of drama. Lack of darkness. Exploration has historically been terrifying and dangerous. Going to the Nazi planet just isn't effective anymore. Draining all of the tension out of Starfleet by making it completely altruistic is boring. It's the PEOPLE, like Pike, that give it altruism and it's people like Marcus that give it villainy. Why this is hard to understand is a mystery to me.
Starfleet doesn't have to be flawless but there doesn't seem to be much of a point when the protagonist Kirk feels that a lot of the rules shouldn't apply to him, when there's such a disconnect between how he and Spock feel about the Prime Directive compared to how the admirals do and when the reasons for Marcus's villainy were so underdeveloped.

C&DfD wrote:
When you spend 33 years in the same universe building upon the same mythology, it's tough to get inspired. You start to lose sight of what worked in the first place, and you need to come at the universe in a different way, which is what the Abrams films did, while still protecting the original universe. Which was for you idiot Trek fans, if you weren't paying attention. Even the boldest idea gets creaky if you aren't allowed to stray from it, and that's what happened with Gene Roddenberry's vision of an evolved future society. Should a 1966 vision be a 1987 vision, or a 1999 vision, or a 2009 vision? Star Trek was broken when those involved weren't allowed to free themselves from that. They all walked away, off to do their own original things, and Trek did what it needed to do: It lay fallow.
That you build off of something doesn't mean you're trapped by it. I really liked that TNG was pretty different from ST and DS9 from both (while Voyager was indeed too TNG extension).

C&DfD wrote:
The scene that every dissenter misinterprets in Into Darkness is NOT a remake of the original scene. In Wrath of Khan, the scene is about an established friendship. In Into Darkness, it's about the beginning of a friendship, the conclusion of an arc in which Spock finally understands friendship in an emotional way so that he doesn't need to quantify it logically.
Obviously the scenes take place in different stages of the characters' lives but it felt unbelievable that they would therefore speak and act so similarly.
__________________
"Let us punish the guilty! Let us reward the innocent."

Last edited by suarezguy; September 18 2013 at 04:19 PM.
suarezguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18 2013, 04:52 PM   #4798
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

neoworx wrote: View Post

Here's my take on the DVD: The 800 Pound Gorilla
The biggest problem I see there is that your premise is faulty; you're not looking at this (forgive me) logically, after all. What I read spends precisely one sentence on the subject of the DVD, and devolves thereafter into a rant - a largely emotional reaction to "one specific, overwhelming issue with STID" which, goes the contention, "should upset just about every Star Trek fan," and which is further misrepresented as having been "introduced out of nowhere," when it really wasn't.

If you don't like something, that's fine, and it's your prerogative. But please - don't try dressing it up as something it's not and then proclaim that everyone else ought to hate it, too. That's insulting the intelligence of your reader, which is hardly ever a good way to go about making a point.

neoworx wrote: View Post
Shocker I won't be buying the DVD which makes this the first Star Trek movie EVER that I won't own.
Please put me down as being appropriately shocked.
__________________
The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but
that the lightning ain't distributed right.
Mark Twain
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18 2013, 05:02 PM   #4799
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Ln X wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
^You do know that TNG used a similar "subspace transporter" for exactly one episode ("Bloodlines") and then completely forgot about it?

And that transwarp beaming was written out of Trek (in this timeline at least) in this film anyway - confiscated from Scotty by Section 31 whose R+D facility in London was then destroyed.
This is Section 31 we're talking about and since Khan stole a transwarp transporter device, it could very be likely that Section 31 made duplicates. Heck if they could make a virus which the Founders could not cure then Section 31 seems very capable at reverse engineering technologies and coming up with new ones.

Also I'm sure they have other top secret R 'n' D facilities out there. If they did duplicate the transwarp transporter device then Section 31 must have scattered their stockpile of these devices.

Something about not placing all your eggs in one basket...
Being Section 31, they're not exactly going to post he formula online for all to see. Plus, I'm not sure there is gonna be much of an S31 now that their leader is dead and their giant warship ended up in downtown San Francisco. If I were a member, I'd think it might be time to lay low for awhile.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18 2013, 09:34 PM   #4800
Michael001
Ensign
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

I am 51 and have been watching Star Trek since I can remember. last night with my wife away I rented Into Darkness. To say I was disappointed would be a huge understatement, in fact it is the only Star Trek movie I have ever fallen asleep while watching. Admittedly only for a few minutes.

The first movie with this new crew was very good and set the stage for a whole new Star Trek. With this latest offering they have taken the arguably the best Start Trek movie of all time "Wrath of Khan" and bastardized it! Nothing new and a very poor adaptation of the original.

With the huge budgets and an endless story possibilities available in a never ending universe, this is the best thing they could come up with?? Reversing the characters Kirk for Spock, in one of the most memorable scenes not just in Star Trek history but in cinematic history was a travesty. I was embarrassed.

What's with senior star fleet crew not only having a relationship but openly kissing on deck? I must be getting old and presume this sort of rubbish is aimed at a newer generation. I can't believe the new Star Trek viewers are that stupid!

Character development in this movie was puerile. Again, I must be showing my age but what's with the casual relationship and interactions between the captain and his subordinate officers and crew?

I just wanted to vent and will never post another comment. I joined today just to express my disappointment to people who might understand.
Michael001 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 08:40 AM.

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