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?
STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]
- Thread starter Agent Richard07
- Start date
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...
.
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).
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..Admiral Buzzkill said:
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.
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.
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!
and b*tching every step of the way!!!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.
Probably when he asked for his crew to be relived - or was caught trying to do so...
I think the entire scene was hyperbole to show just how reckless Kirk and his crew probably were over the last year. To that end, I think it worked marvelously. Think of all the careless, reckless, and not fully thought out things going on (some of which were even called out in the movie). This is where Kirk was relying fully on luck, something that in TWOK, Kirk Prime realized he relied on far too often. In this case, it's still young Kirk probably thinking he's a genius:
-- Enterprise under water. Hey, gotta hide it somewhere. Scotty even thinks it's stupid, which lends some on-screen credibility to it being simply a reckless act by Kirk. Why's the Enterprise under water? There is no good answer,only rationalization. It was stupid, and it was called stupid.
-- Kirk and McCoy's "distraction" of the natives risked the lives of a starship captain and a chief medical officer. Think of how lucky they were that the natives are bad aims or neither of them tripped and fell running through that native grass.
-- Sending Spock down into the volcano. Pike said that was stupid.
-- Sending the shuttle in without extra shielding added to it. They come up with a device to freeze a volcano and a suit to protect Spock, but there's nothing that can add extra protection to a shuttle that's going to hover over an active volcano?
-- The idea that they all willingly take on the mission in the first place. Did anyone think it through? There were no other alternatives?
-- Of course, there's also the problematic nature of the transporter when it would be really useful, which is a Trek storytelling staple and is the reason for all these convoluted events.
I think the point of the entire scene was to show that these were still kids playing with adult things.
-- Enterprise under water. Hey, gotta hide it somewhere. Scotty even thinks it's stupid, which lends some on-screen credibility to it being simply a reckless act by Kirk. Why's the Enterprise under water? There is no good answer,only rationalization. It was stupid, and it was called stupid.
-- Kirk and McCoy's "distraction" of the natives risked the lives of a starship captain and a chief medical officer. Think of how lucky they were that the natives are bad aims or neither of them tripped and fell running through that native grass.
-- Sending Spock down into the volcano. Pike said that was stupid.
-- Sending the shuttle in without extra shielding added to it. They come up with a device to freeze a volcano and a suit to protect Spock, but there's nothing that can add extra protection to a shuttle that's going to hover over an active volcano?
-- The idea that they all willingly take on the mission in the first place. Did anyone think it through? There were no other alternatives?
-- Of course, there's also the problematic nature of the transporter when it would be really useful, which is a Trek storytelling staple and is the reason for all these convoluted events.
I think the point of the entire scene was to show that these were still kids playing with adult things.
That is one of the sanest posts I've read on this board since this madness began. Or you're just one of Abrams' better shills.
Guess the fusion device that Spock sets off, couldn't simply have been dropped or beamed into the volcano from above... 
^Good lord, we're not talking about a regular plug and play fusion device here! It's COLD fusion technology. It's a whole different ball game!
So the kids get a pass because Starfleet had the poor judgement to give them the flagship to play with in the first place. Incompetency at the highest levels of SF Command? Well, I guess that does follow tradition. So, whereas in the past Our Heroes™ were the smart ones and the Admirals were stir crazy, now the whole lot are idiots.
So the kids get a pass because Starfleet had the poor judgement to give them the flagship to play with in the first place. Incompetency at the highest levels of SF Command? Well, I guess that does follow tradition. So, whereas in the past Our Heroes™ were the smart ones and the Admirals were stir crazy, now the whole lot are idiots.
Last edited:
^Good lord, we're not talking about a regular plug and play fusion device here! It's COLD fusion technology. It's a whole different ball game!
So the kids get a pass because Starfleet had the poor judgement to give them the flagship to play with in the first place. Incompetency at the highest levels of SF Command? Well, I guess that does follow tradition. So, whereas in the past Our Heroes™ were the smart ones and the Admirals were stir crazy, now the whole lot are idiots.
So what did nuKirk actually do wrong?
He saved a pre-Warp civilisation from death instead of watching them die.
He should have thought - What would have Picard done in this situation? He would have let them die and then lectured Data about it.
Saw it again last night, this time in IMAX 3D on a "real" IMAX screen (one designed for 15/70 film which is the full IMAX resolution--this is a lot rarer than the many Digital IMAX cinemas that have opened up over the past 5-7 years or so). From a story standpoint, IMAX doesn't make any difference but from a sheer spectacle standpoint, the portions filmed with IMAX cameras shine in a way a regular format simply cannot match (as was the case for the second and third Nolan Batman movies). The 3D was not headache inducing, as it usually is for me (only other time it wasn't was another IMAX 3D presentation--The Hobbit), but I didn't find it added anything to the experience (obviously a personal opinion--I know many are very enthused by 3D). Ideally, I'd like to see a 2D IMAX presentation, but there are none to be found anywhere nearby (if anywhere at all). I just hope the Blu-ray release includes a version with changing aspect ratios, like the Nolan movies, though I'm not holding my breath.
So much for the technical notes.
The story holds up to repeat viewing, as any alleged (and real) flaws are not so glaring as to make it fall apart--no more so than the vast majority of films out there (including very highly regarded ones). I could pick a few nits here and there, but I could do that for every single episode and film across all Trek series--what would be the point? In the end, I was even more entertained the second time around (which is good, considering the asking price for a 3D IMAX ticket in these parts) and I look forward to watching it again, as well as any new stuff produced by this team.
As for the reasonable complaints I've seen/heard/read--I think a lot of it results from the two films by this team being a palimpsest (your vocab word of the day, as my English teacher used to say) of Trek rather than a fully realized exploration of one's particularly favourite aspect of Trek. Large cast, but not an ensemble approach like TNG-era Trek. Better treatment of women than in TOS, but not as egalitarian as in TNG-era Trek. Makes the kind of moral and ethical argument for which TOS is fondly remembered (the stance against drones/targeted killing), but doesn't spend a significant, uninterrupted chunk of the film focused on the debate. Use of "magic tech" but insufficient time spent on explaining how it works "in-universe" so as to frustrate those who like such technical elements. Kirk suffers consequence of too swift promotion, but that is too quickly resolved to seem substantial. I could go on but I think this is enough to make my point. The ideal solution to all this? Probably a TV series. Movies simply don't have the time to explore any of the above in any detail. So we get a sprinkling (it is a lot like the difference between teaching a course called World History and one called The History of Vermont--I've done both and each has its frustrations, as well as its rewards, regarding breadth and depth of discussion and study). And since the filmmakers cannot possibly satisfy everyone's ideal notion of Trek (among those who have such a thing), they've put forth something they enjoy and hope the audience does too. On that score, they appear to have succeeded quite well (given both critical and audience word of mouth reaction).
So much for the technical notes.
The story holds up to repeat viewing, as any alleged (and real) flaws are not so glaring as to make it fall apart--no more so than the vast majority of films out there (including very highly regarded ones). I could pick a few nits here and there, but I could do that for every single episode and film across all Trek series--what would be the point? In the end, I was even more entertained the second time around (which is good, considering the asking price for a 3D IMAX ticket in these parts) and I look forward to watching it again, as well as any new stuff produced by this team.
As for the reasonable complaints I've seen/heard/read--I think a lot of it results from the two films by this team being a palimpsest (your vocab word of the day, as my English teacher used to say
) of Trek rather than a fully realized exploration of one's particularly favourite aspect of Trek. Large cast, but not an ensemble approach like TNG-era Trek. Better treatment of women than in TOS, but not as egalitarian as in TNG-era Trek. Makes the kind of moral and ethical argument for which TOS is fondly remembered (the stance against drones/targeted killing), but doesn't spend a significant, uninterrupted chunk of the film focused on the debate. Use of "magic tech" but insufficient time spent on explaining how it works "in-universe" so as to frustrate those who like such technical elements. Kirk suffers consequence of too swift promotion, but that is too quickly resolved to seem substantial. I could go on but I think this is enough to make my point. The ideal solution to all this? Probably a TV series. Movies simply don't have the time to explore any of the above in any detail. So we get a sprinkling (it is a lot like the difference between teaching a course called World History and one called The History of Vermont--I've done both and each has its frustrations, as well as its rewards, regarding breadth and depth of discussion and study). And since the filmmakers cannot possibly satisfy everyone's ideal notion of Trek (among those who have such a thing), they've put forth something they enjoy and hope the audience does too. On that score, they appear to have succeeded quite well (given both critical and audience word of mouth reaction).
^Good lord, we're not talking about a regular plug and play fusion device here! It's COLD fusion technology. It's a whole different ball game!
So the kids get a pass because Starfleet had the poor judgement to give them the flagship to play with in the first place. Incompetency at the highest levels of SF Command? Well, I guess that does follow tradition. So, whereas in the past Our Heroes™ were the smart ones and the Admirals were stir crazy, now the whole lot are idiots.
Uh, no. No one said incompetent. Green? Yes. Reckless? Yes. A little too fearless? Yes. And no one gets a pass, either. He undoubtedly embarrassed Pike over the year. And, Kirk was finally punished, and he should have been. Not so much for the PD, but for his behavior and lying in his official ship's log (a federal offense in the U.S. in today's world).
We never saw the young Kirk Prime. We don't know how his judgement evolved. Twice in his older life he was critical of himself. He said once he relied too much on luck thinking it was skill, and another time he said he was the "fools rush in" type.
As far as the volcano goes, a more mature Kirk or Kirk Prime would've saved that world, too, but his methods would've been more thought through and "conventional," I'm sure.
Last edited:
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.
I'm not at all convinced that 'warp speed' has any kind of momentum during the deceleration. There was virtually no disturbance to the atmosphere of Titan when the Enterprise 'landed.' It's more of a "We're done distorting the fabric of the universe" kind of thing, rather than "We just applied the brakes at a thousand times the speed of light."
I hadn't considered that the Enterprise had actually dropped out of warp in the ocean, but that would have been fantastic to watch. I think it's more likely they arrived under the cover of darkness after observing the local population to ensure that no one was watching.
As for the whys and wherefores, as metioned by several people (including the screenwriters) there are several in-universe reasons that could have factored into the decision to bring the Enterprise down to the planet's surface. Having them explicitly spelled-out doesn't really have an upside and would have put the brakes on an otherwise thrilling cold-open.
Yep.
OK. Here's how Kirk Prime would've done it. Easy peasy, and not at all as entertaining. Remember, no transporters.
As Stig said, use the cover of darkness. Send a shuttle down from orbit. The shuttle is reinforced to withstand the heat being put out by the volcano. Scotty has even added extra thrusters and stabilizers to cope with any turbulence.
Once in place, Spock uses his tricorder to scan the maw of the volcano for an appropriate spot to deliver the freezing device. Once found, the device is attached to a probe and delivered to the spot by Spock using a fly-by-wire system. Once there, the timer is activated, the shuttle leaves, and the device detonates.
That requires only two concessions: I would think 23rd century technology would be good enough for a fly-by-wire system to deliver the device (considering we have it now), and also good enough for activating devices by remote control from short distances even inside a volcano (considering we can already activate devices on other planets remotely).
Now let's say that took nine minutes. Which nine minutes would you like to see? That, or the original?
As Stig said, use the cover of darkness. Send a shuttle down from orbit. The shuttle is reinforced to withstand the heat being put out by the volcano. Scotty has even added extra thrusters and stabilizers to cope with any turbulence.
Once in place, Spock uses his tricorder to scan the maw of the volcano for an appropriate spot to deliver the freezing device. Once found, the device is attached to a probe and delivered to the spot by Spock using a fly-by-wire system. Once there, the timer is activated, the shuttle leaves, and the device detonates.
That requires only two concessions: I would think 23rd century technology would be good enough for a fly-by-wire system to deliver the device (considering we have it now), and also good enough for activating devices by remote control from short distances even inside a volcano (considering we can already activate devices on other planets remotely).
Now let's say that took nine minutes. Which nine minutes would you like to see? That, or the original?
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
