• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Grade the movie...


  • Total voters
    796
Well, a personal thumbs-up for STiD, my wife loved it.

My wife is not a sci-fi fan. She loved TNG and DS9, but really only watched it because I was a fan. She never liked any of the Trek movies - thought they were cheesy. She barely liked ST09.

I finally got her to go last night - it might be the last day to see it in the first-run theatres around here. Talk about last minute.

In her words - "Wow!"

She loved the characters, the story arc, the action, the pace of the movie, the mystery, the FX. She thought Cumberbatch made a wonderfully menacing bad guy. In her words, "It's a movie I'd go see again, in the theatre."

Non-Fans see a great movie here.

::Happy Dance::

ETA:

Fine, so you have to have them actually crash into Earth, because the script calls for it. My point is, show them streaking into the atmosphere at an angle, not falling directly down on the Earth. It is a small thing, but to anyone who knows science, it is glaring, and just shows that most people who worked on this movie know very little about physics and didn’t talk to anyone who did.

You mean the Star Trek with the Warp Drive, Matter/Energy Transporters, Galactic Energy Barriers, Slingshot-Around-the-Sun Time Travel, etc., etc. etc... ?

50 years of implausible science, The Enterprise falls to earth, and THAT'S where you're drawing your 'Physics Line in the Sand'?
 
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyoeftENAqU[/yt]

If you guys are interested, I filmed this at a recent convention here in Boston. Marina Sirtis and Levar Burton are talking about Into Darkness quite candidly.
 
50 years of implausible science, The Enterprise falls to earth, and THAT'S where you're drawing your 'Physics Line in the Sand'?

What, at the rules of gravity? Sure, why not.

Star Trek has never obeyed the rules of gravity, since the ridiculously rapidly decaying orbits of TOS. Your insistence that it start obeying real orbital mechanics now, something it never, ever did before, is completely arbitrary.

So, to be clear, JJTrek is bad, because it isn't like old Trek. And, it's bad, because it is like old Trek. It can never win.
 
Star Trek has never obeyed the rules of gravity, since the ridiculously rapidly decaying orbits of TOS. Your insistence that it start obeying real orbital mechanics now, something it never, ever did before, is completely arbitrary.

As a Doctor Who fan I take psuedo-science in my stride. I linked to an article exposing the [lack of] science in Star Trek.

I actually think it would have provided a cooler visual if the laws of gravity had been even slightly adhered to, with the Enterprise streaking across the sky in a decaying orbit as opposed to tumbling like a big sack of spuds.
 
50 years of implausible science, The Enterprise falls to earth, and THAT'S where you're drawing your 'Physics Line in the Sand'?

What, at the rules of gravity? Sure, why not.

You might as well be angry that TOS has something called Artificial Gravity and Inertial Dampers. One keeps the crew from floating 'round, the other keeps them from turning into chunky salsa when the ship accelerates. Both break your Gravity Rules.
 
Star Trek has never obeyed the rules of gravity, since the ridiculously rapidly decaying orbits of TOS. Your insistence that it start obeying real orbital mechanics now, something it never, ever did before, is completely arbitrary.

As a Doctor Who fan I take psuedo-science in my stride. I linked to an article exposing the [lack of] science in Star Trek.

I actually think it would have provided a cooler visual if the laws of gravity had been even slightly adhered to, with the Enterprise streaking across the sky in a decaying orbit as opposed to tumbling like a big sack of spuds.

Really you're a Doctor Who fan and you dare question the science of Star Trek :p
I give Dr Who big big leeway in science but please explain (scientifically) the seven planets episode where someone/something pulled seven planets out of their orbits took them somewhere away from their suns and nobody died.
That's were I drew my line in the sand with Dr Who :lol:
 
Star Trek has never obeyed the rules of gravity, since the ridiculously rapidly decaying orbits of TOS. Your insistence that it start obeying real orbital mechanics now, something it never, ever did before, is completely arbitrary.

As a Doctor Who fan I take psuedo-science in my stride. I linked to an article exposing the [lack of] science in Star Trek.

I actually think it would have provided a cooler visual if the laws of gravity had been even slightly adhered to, with the Enterprise streaking across the sky in a decaying orbit as opposed to tumbling like a big sack of spuds.

Really you're a Doctor Who fan and you dare question the science of Star Trek :p
I give Dr Who big big leeway in science but please explain (scientifically) the seven planets episode where someone/something pulled seven planets out of their orbits took them somewhere away from their suns and nobody died.
That's were I drew my line in the sand with Dr Who :lol:

:lol:

It's twenty-seven planets.

Never, ever use "Dr" when talking about Doctor Who ;)
But, yeah, the "science" in Doctor Who conforms to the stories, just like it does in Star Trek.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top