Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by Agent Richard07, Apr 18, 2013.
How will they know if they dislike it?
Because it is impure already in their eyes. Or some load of old shit.
It's called "a hunch".
Well, in the full sentence I wrote, that's not how that reads at all. You engaged in selective editing. Take it from me, opposition-research political consultants couldn't have misquoted that sentence to change its meaning any better.
There are those who will probably BOYCOTT based on some principle like blue warp nacelles or transwarp beaming or a brewery as engineering. (Where are the boycotters this time around, by the way? Ah, the good old days.)
I think the transporters limitations need to spelled out to any writer coming onto Trek once and for all. Its really quite straightforward to be honest:
Transporters range of approximately 50,000km which allows for beaming to a planets surface from orbit
Transporters cannot be used if shields are up.
I know the rules have been broken a number of times... too many times to count. Transwarp beaming is such utter bollocks really that I never want it to be used again.... just like slingshotting around the sun isn't used. I have heard there are some transporter issues in this movie.
The use of transporters was extremely silly in the 2009 film. First they couldn't beam because of Nero's death star laser, then they could beam falling Sulu & Kirk aboard (but only because wizkid Chekov was better at handling the joystick than the regular transporter gal), then they could NOT beam falling Amanda, even though she was already dematerializing, then they could beam to a ship moving at warp (using the transporters of a simple shuttle, just by using a new algorithm, no need to change the hardware like the antenna or the power source), then they could beam across the entire solar system on the Narade even though Nero's death star laser was on, and then they could beam fast moving Spock again.
The whole idea that they can't beam you just because you fall... geez. Moving reference frames is the very first thing you need to solve when you beam from a spaceship to spaceship or spaceship to planet anyway. Both spaceships and planets move at thousands of kilometers per minute through space. No problem to account for moving bodies there.
I can't tell if you're serious or not
I've got a question (actually two) for anyone who's already seen the movie and if this has already been covered in here, I apologize in advance, but I don't have the time or inclination to read through all seventy-plus pages of this thread to find out.
My first question is this:
Is there a flashback scene in which we see the recovery of the Botany Bay and Khan's revival, much as there was the flashback in the first movie involving Nero and Old Spock's backstory?
My second question is far less spoiler-oriented: Is there an after-credits scene of any sort?
Thanks in advance to anyone who has the answers.
And also because they had ~25,000 feet of uncluttered open air leeway and plenty of time to work with before Kirk and Sulu hit the ground.
She wasn't dematerializing, she was just in the "locking on" phase essentially, and when she fell through that it would necessitate locking on to her all over again, which they didn't have time to do since unlike Kirk and Sulu who fell through 25,000 feet of open air, she was falling into a crevasse full of debris and had much less time before impact with the molten ground.
Isn't that exactly what the Ferengi and the Enterprise-D crew did with the interstellar subspace transporter doohickey in "Bloodlines"? They made a few modifications but used their normal equipment to do it.
Didn't they beam aboard before the drilling laser was turned on? I'm not clear on this one.
And again, I think that wasn't about the speed he was moving at rather than the time they had to lock on. Obviously the speed would reduce the amount of time available, but I don't think (low sublight) speed alone makes it more difficult to lock on. It's also about interference from other nearby materials, how steady their path is, and so forth. Also, being inside another ship might help the process, as its internal scanners might make focusing in on your target more easy.
All that being said, though, how many times did they find arbitrary reasons for the transporter not to work on the shows and films so they were conveniently trapped or needed to taking a guaranteed to crash shuttle down to the surface instead? It all works or doesn't work at the whim of the plot. It just seems odd to take Trek09 to task more than everything else.
The only reason they had trouble beaming both Kirk & Sulu in freefall as well as Amanda was because the newly formed black hole was playing havoc with the targeting sensors. With Kirk & Sulu, Chekov had enough time to teleport them because he had a window of 25k feet (somewhere in that neighborhood), and he ONLY managed to teleport them RIGHT before they hit the ground. Amanda wasn't as lucky, as she was much closer to peril when the ground gave out beneath her.
That's why it was so much easier for them to beam Spock out of the Jellyfish before he hit the Narada, because they didn't have to contend with anything that would impede their sensors. Also, the drill hadn't been turned on by the time Kirk and Spock beamed onto the Narada.
Yeah, that's what I said.
What's crazy to me is that the people seeking the answer to absolutely every plot point is that they'll not experience it the way I enjoyed the movie. Then, if they're disappointed in the movie, they won't know if it was due to knowledge of spoilers or something else. The anticipation of the unknown is part of the experience.
I spent a lot of this movie attempting to second guess what would happen next - and it kept surprising me. In a good way.
If you're still determined...
Spoiler: above spoiler request
Nope, but many, many people stayed in the seats anyway. Whether they were enjoying the closing credits music, already dissecting the movie, posting comments to IMDb, Twitter and Facebook, or waiting for a after-credits scene, I don't know.
Thanks Therin! I'm not really out to learn everything about the movie before the 17th, but I was really curious about that particular item. Be interesting to see whether or not ADF works that into his novelization or not (which I'm hoping will be available from the Sony Store on the 21st for my E-reader).
Although I'm a self-admitted spoiler-whore, I'll agree with you that knowing too much can diminish the impact of seeing a film for the first time. Then again, reading the novelization of ST:TMP a month before seeing the movie didn't stop me from loving every minute of it.
Okay, I'll play. He's all of those but not amongst SF media fans.
You do realize that Benedict was not any one of those things before Sherlock came on the scene, right?
Either way, stop asking these stupid questions. There's no point in comparing the two actors. I explained why yenny posted the link and that's that.
ETA: Okay, he was a talented actor always. Vastly talented. Sorry, posting in a hurry!
As always, you bring some perspective, Franklin.
Btw, I just want to say that I *AM* watching this movie. I'm one of those old Trekkies for whom JJ and co DIDN'T make this movie. Because they know that, come hell or highwater, I'll be there with bells on.
But that doesn't mean I can't bitch if I want to. And they listen to us, too. If they didn't, they wouldn't be putting words in Pike's mouth that sound eerily similar to stuff we all say re Kirk's "promotion".
For one reason:
In order to chew on the inaccuracies you list one has to know something about the real world and about the cultures under discussion...
...whereas to complain about the actor playing him one only has to know about and have an obsessive concern with the trivia and minutiae of Star Trek.
Yes. The only difference is that I didn't have the foresight to hit refresh before posting.
Although, in fairness, you didn't mention anything about the black hole playing merry hob with the transporters.
STID: The first sign that Abrahms is NOT infallable [-> G&D]
Obviously there was a lot of Hype around our J.J after Star Trek XI came out, he looked to be breathing new life into the series which had gotten stale. Star Trek Into Darkness however, was a little bit of a dissapointment to me. Without getting into too many spoilers, I have a feeling that the way J.J sees the Star Trek universe is a little bit one note. The performance of Benedict Cumberbatch is the high point of the movie, and expect J.J to get a lot of credit for that but the thing is Benedict would do well with any script.
All this is not to say that the film is bad, far from it. But with the novelty factor gone, STID is just a solid 7/10 actioner with a very good performance by it's main villain. Outside of that it's nothing special, and it suffers the same problems it's predecessor did, in forgetting the roots of the franchise, although this time it's even worse as J.J did not have to worry about the core fanbase buying tickets.
I hope that J.J is not at the helm for the next movie in the series, as it will be nice to see somebody else have a go. J.J can produce consistantly decent product but I feel he is lacking that something extra which will be needed to KEEP this franchise relevant.
Re: STID: The first sign that Abrahms is NOT infallable
Brief and not too detailed, but still a review, so off it goes to the Grading & Discussion thread...
Couple o questions for Therin or the other lucky few viewers
1. How long and or poignant is the Nimoy scene?
2. Is the E shown in dry dock at the end for refit or repairs or is it just shown barely holding orbit beat to shit and smoking like A chimney
Sorry if these need spoiler tags can't figure out how to do it and I've been drinking alot of 12 yr old scotch
Separate names with a comma.