STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

[Set Harth]

We see from ST09 that he gets the main idea.

 

[Ln X]

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.

 

[Amaris]

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.

 

[Therin of Andor]

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?

 

[Ln X]

^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...

 

[BillJ]

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.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

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.

Spoiler: character

It's Doctor Boyce.

 

[Noname Given]

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)

 

[doubleohfive]

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?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ 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.

 

[Maurice]

^ 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
   
   

 

[suarezguy]

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.

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).

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.

 

[M'Sharak]

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.

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.

 

[F. King Daniel]

^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.

 

[Michael001]

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.

 

[Ln X]

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.

Don't worry you oldies are not the only ones in this minority group who dislike STID. Being 21 myself I've seen a fair share of Star Trek and STID was the first ST movie which left me disappointed. For me it was the ending, and how it fizzled out, which really did the damage for me.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

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.

How do they know they place they're going isn't just empty space, or how do they know they are materializing in a all or something, or that the place has a atmosphere they can breath, or that it isn't irradiated or something, and most importantly how do they get back since they can't take the transporter with them?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I'm sure the device has to interface with a larger computer/control system in some manner. Perhaps it's meant to link with a 'normal' transporter.

 

[SeerSGB]

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.

How do they know they place they're going isn't just empty space, or how do they know they are materializing in a all or something, or that the place has a atmosphere they can breath, or that it isn't irradiated or something, and most importantly how do they get back since they can't take the transporter with them?

And going back to TNG where there is a similar concept: Maybe multiple or prolonged use fucks your body up. Great if you need to beam in a few done assains or shock troops, but terrible for the long term health of your explorers who use it repeatedly.

 

[Opus]

The first movie with this new crew was very good and set the stage for a whole new Star Trek.

Agreed.

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.

It had Khan, and a few nods, but it was hardly an adaptation of TWOK. Not in the least. Alt Universe characters having different experiences resulting in different outcomes - In essence, it's "a whole new Star Trek".

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.

Ummmm... No.

I was embarrassed.

Really? Embarrassed? 51 years old? Really?

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!

TOS, Season 1 - Court Martial:

Areel Shaw: Do you think it would cause a complete breakdown of discipline, if a lowly lieutenant kissed a starship captain on the bridge of his ship?
Captain James T. Kirk: Let's try.
[they kiss]
Captain James T. Kirk: See, no change. Discipline goes on.

Or you can go with, "It's a 'whole new Star Trek'."

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?

TOS Season 2 - The Trouble with Tribbles:

Capt. Kirk: Mister Scott. Where - are - the tribbles?
Scott: I used the transporter, Captain.
Capt. Kirk: You used the transporter?
Scott: Aye.
Capt. Kirk: Well, where did you transport them?
[the others are looking away, trying to appear not involved]
Capt. Kirk: Scott, you didn't transport them into space, did you?
Scott: Captain Kirk! That'd be inhuman!
Capt. Kirk: Well, where are they?
Scott: I gave them a very good home, sir.
Capt. Kirk: WHERE?
Scott: I gave 'em to the Klingons, sir.
Capt. Kirk: [whispering] You gave them to the Klingons?
Scott: Aye, sir. Before they went into warp, I transported the whole kit 'n' caboodle into their engine room, where they'll be no tribble at all.
[Entire Bridge Crew Laughs]

Or - It's "a whole new Star Trek". Either answer works.

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

Hmmmmm... Yeah... seems legit...