Star Trek Into Darkness - SPOILERS!!!

[ralfy]

Several flaws are mentioned here:

http://io9.com/star-trek-into-darkness-the-spoiler-faq-508927844

You'll find more in various negative reviews of the movie.

How many times are you going to post this? We get it. You think STiD sucks. Most of us don't.

My guess is that most don't because they are only looking at the special effects, etc., and that they are ignoring these flaws. Did I get that right?

Here are more:

23 plot holes mentioned here:

http://blog.jerrynixon.com/2013/05/star-trek-into-darkness-plot-holes.html

Some more here, with points about the plot being cobbled together:

http://www.tor.com/blogs/2013/05/star-trek-into-darkness-review-spoilers

Issues concerning continuity, which Star Trek fans likely already realize:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/filmch...into-darkness-first-impressions-spoilers.html

A point about the absence of techno-babble, which those new to Star Trek will probably not see as relevant:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat...s_review_j_j_abrams_gets_star_trek_wrong.html

Another reference to the "muddled" plot:

http://movies.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/movies/star-trek-into-darkness-directed-by-j-j-abrams.html

Good points, though, regarding fleshing out characters:

http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/movies/lost_in_space_xoqlzpJ1zWW4E9uKZsJpfN

Plot holes re-mentioned here, but additional problems with the allusions to previous films:

http://collider.com/star-trek-into-darkness-review/

Another reference to fan service, and the idea of a "Trek" movie:

http://www.popcults.com/into-darkness-fails-as-a-star-trek-movie/

My views follow these, i.e., it's an OK action sci-fi, but the plot is weak and cumbersome. I appreciate the fact that they tried to attract an audience that likes action sci-fi movies but are new to Star Trek plus Star Trek fans that are looking for something new, but it doesn't work for this movie.

 

[ralfy]

At least one of which is disproved by actually paying attention to the film.

Seriously if someone is going to bitch about something make sure they know what the f@#k they're talking about.

After that its all a bunch of crap probably I don't give two s@#ts about, as its meaningless fanboy whining.

Next!

Just one?

Next.

 

[Dukhat]

Several flaws are mentioned here:

http://io9.com/star-trek-into-darkness-the-spoiler-faq-508927844

You'll find more in various negative reviews of the movie.

How many times are you going to post this? We get it. You think STiD sucks. Most of us don't.

My guess is that most don't because they are only looking at the special effects, etc., and that they are ignoring these flaws. Did I get that right?

Here are more:

23 plot holes mentioned here:

http://blog.jerrynixon.com/2013/05/star-trek-into-darkness-plot-holes.html

Some more here, with points about the plot being cobbled together:

http://www.tor.com/blogs/2013/05/star-trek-into-darkness-review-spoilers

Issues concerning continuity, which Star Trek fans likely already realize:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/filmch...into-darkness-first-impressions-spoilers.html

A point about the absence of techno-babble, which those new to Star Trek will probably not see as relevant:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat...s_review_j_j_abrams_gets_star_trek_wrong.html

Another reference to the "muddled" plot:

http://movies.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/movies/star-trek-into-darkness-directed-by-j-j-abrams.html

Good points, though, regarding fleshing out characters:

http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/movies/lost_in_space_xoqlzpJ1zWW4E9uKZsJpfN

Plot holes re-mentioned here, but additional problems with the allusions to previous films:

http://collider.com/star-trek-into-darkness-review/

Another reference to fan service, and the idea of a "Trek" movie:

http://www.popcults.com/into-darkness-fails-as-a-star-trek-movie/

My views follow these, i.e., it's an OK action sci-fi, but the plot is weak and cumbersome. I appreciate the fact that they tried to attract an audience that likes action sci-fi movies but are new to Star Trek plus Star Trek fans that are looking for something new, but it doesn't work for this movie.

Seriously dude, you're really on the edge of trolling now with all this shit. Either give your own reasons why you dislike the film (in the appropriate section for that), or cease this incessant posting of links nobody gives a crap about.

 

[Hopeful Romantic]

ralfy:

No more repetitive posts; we can all read.

No more posts without substantive original content; the idea is to discuss, not simply post links without comment.

Also, your posts belong in the Trek XI+ forum, not here. Thanks.

Dukhat:

It's best to hit the Notify Mod button if you see a problem, and let the moderators handle it.

 

[Captain59]

Several flaws are mentioned here:

http://io9.com/star-trek-into-darkness-the-spoiler-faq-508927844

You'll find more in various negative reviews of the movie.

What a load of crap. The second I read a swear word I clicked off the page. If you can't make an argument without using foul language, you have no argument...you're just trying to shock people. The movie is awesome. People know it. Deal with it.

Now can we get back to my OP? After a bunch of people have seen it multiple times, there are no other ENT references?

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

The only ENT reference I saw was the model.

 

[ralfy]

Seriously dude, you're really on the edge of trolling now with all this shit. Either give your own reasons why you dislike the film (in the appropriate section for that), or cease this incessant posting of links nobody gives a crap about.

A troll is someone who contributes nothing to a discussion, which is what you are doing right now.

I was asked to explain what the flaws are in the movie, and I did. That's it.

Finally, the reason why I am doing that here is because this spread discusses the movie and contains spoilers, which is exactly what is contained in the links. You cannot discuss the plot holes in this movie without spoilers.

Now, if you think a new thread should be created for this, then make that request to the mod. Whatever you do, stop trolling.

 

[ralfy]

No more posts without substantive original content; the idea is to discuss, not simply post links without comment.

I don't understand why "original content" is necessary, as several viewers already see the same flaws in the movie.

Also, your posts belong in the Trek XI+ forum, not here. Thanks.

Thank you for mentioning that. It's just that this thread is found in the "Star Trek TV Series" section. Should it be moved to Trek XI+?

 

[ralfy]

What a load of crap. The second I read a swear word I clicked off the page. If you can't make an argument without using foul language, you have no argument...you're just trying to shock people. The movie is awesome. People know it. Deal with it.

Now can we get back to my OP? After a bunch of people have seen it multiple times, there are no other ENT references?

I cannot do anything about the foul language, but you are free to look at the other links. They refer to the same errors found in the spoiler FAQ and more.

 

[Hopeful Romantic]

Whatever you do, stop trolling.

Accusations of trolling are regarded as trolling. I advise you-- and everyone else-- to refrain from such accusations in future. Further name-calling will result in a warning. This is your last caution on the subject.

If you see a problem, hit the notify button.

Also, your posts belong in the Trek XI+ forum, not here. Thanks.

Thank you for mentioning that. It's just that this thread is found in the "Star Trek TV Series" section. Should it be moved to Trek XI+?

The thread belongs here, but you should move to the Trek XI+ forum unless you have something to contribute regarding references to the series Enterprise in the movie. That is the topic of this thread.

Also, ralfy, posting more than twice in a row is considered spamming. Reposting already posted material, or a bunch of links, without substantive comment is considered spamming. Please review the FAQ and adhere to the rules from now on.

Back on topic, please.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I've gone to showings of really old 3D movies in the early 80's, and had trouble with getting the 3D glasses over my prescription glasses.

In the 80s, 3D glasses were usually made of cardboard. I've never had a problem putting these, nor modern plastic 3D glasses, over my prescription frames but...

http://www.tr3ndy3d.com/clip-on-3d-glasses

Why not invest in these?

 

[Ovation]

I've not noticed any other reference to Enterprise than the model in my two viewings of the latest movie. I found the two references (one in each movie) nicely handled and subtle and didn't really expect any more than that (nor do I think there should be too many--not because I don't like the series but because I prefer subtle when it comes to callbacks to other series. I wouldn't want a TNG film, for example, to have too many TOS references either).

 

[F. King Daniel]

The ENT Augments trilogy works as perfectly as a prequel to Into Darkness as it does "Space Seed" and Wrath of Khan. I love how new Treks can make us look back at older episodes or movies slightly differently. ID sheds new light on Henry Archer's death:

SOONG: They're the future. They're stronger, smarter, free from sickness, with life spans twice as long as our own. You, more than anyone, should appreciate what this means.

ARCHER: Why me?

SOONG: Your father suffered from Clarke's Disease. His final years were marked with extreme pain.

ARCHER: My father has nothing to do with this.

SOONG: He didn't need to suffer. Genetic engineering could've cured him. Those who want to suppress my Augments are the same ones who condemned your father to death.

(from "Borderland" http://www.chakoteya.net/enterprise/80.htm)


...all it would have taken to save Henry Archer was an injection of whatever's in Khan's blood, as we saw with Lucille Harewood at the start of Into Darkness and at the end with Kirk - technology which has been outlawed on Earth since 1996.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

I don't get why the super blood isn't already in use.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

I saw STiD in 3D IMAX and the glasses they gave me fit comfortably over my own. The last time i saw a 3D movie was Avatar and the 3D glasses were so uncomfortable.

The movie was better in IMAX 3D, IMHO.

I don't get why the super blood isn't already in use.

It will be, don't you worry about that-most likely synthesized by McCoy and a certain doctor into a cure-all drug similar to cordrazine. The Federation would be stupid for letting a drug derived from blood like that go to waste, just because of the people that precipitated the tragedy in the movie.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

It should have already been in use since the Eugenically enhanced were adults in the 90's. They didn't create themselves, there would be samples and research that should have pointed mankind in the direction of superblood long before Khan had to stick his arm out of the brig. Khan obviously knew his blood was super.

 

[R. Star]

I really didn't like the concept at all that "superblood" is the hand waving anti-death serum.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

That's right, it's stupid and there should be a horrible side effect that Kirk suffers from in the next movie that ensures no one tries it again.

OH I so wish that McCoy had gotten the super part out of the tribble and there was some hilarious tribble related side effect..

 

[R. Star]

Like Kirk's hair falls out and turns into a tribble? That'd be an amusing spoof on the Shatner hairpiece.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Actually I was thinking of Too Many Pinkie Pies meets James T. Kirk..

More is better, right?