Greetings!

Welcome to Scifi-Meshes.com! Click one of these buttons to join in on the fun.

Star Trek: Into Darkness (Contains Spoilers)

11112131517

Posts

  • spacefighterspacefighter2 Posts: 0Member
    the film is good enough that i went and bought the dvd today.
  • SaquistSaquist1 Posts: 0Member
    biotech wrote: »

    This is a video of the shuttle launching, and the boosters returning to earth 8 minutes later.

    The shuttle was in orbit, the boosters were not, the shuttle did not fall to earth, the boosters did.

    The moon is in orbit of the earth, that does not mean an object near the moon is also in orbit of the earth, any more than an object near the shuttle is in orbit.

    Gravity is a force of acceleration, in the atmosphere a falling object will reach terminal velocity, the point where it can no longer speed up, in the vacuum of space there is no terminal velocity, and an object caught in earth's gravity will continue to accelerate until it does hit the atmosphere.

    Now this will not happen as quickly as it did in the film, but if you don't accept dramatic licence in movies you might as well not go to them in the first place.

    The movie is just preying on ignorance.
    The audience is more likely to point out a problem with rapid speed of relate-able distances like New York to LA in 30 minutes.

    The fact is that Enterprise and Vengeance were in an orbit of some kind. The debris stayed in one place through the entire dodge maneuver from one ship to another. The stupidity of the films required them to alter physics to suddenly have the Enterprise Rocket toward Earth once it's engines died.

    It's not remotely believable.
    The movie may have covered it's plot holes better than the first (which was a story boarding disaster the likes of which I've never seen before.) but for me having this knowledge I know just how much he's suckering the audience.

    Just when I was starting to enjoy the film JJ Abrams spams me with TWOK Quotes and scene rips and concludes it with a mess of an ending. I think he's afraid doing anything original. But he did his job and got the money.

    I would rather see Ironman 3 again.
  • oldmangregoldmangreg198 Woodland Hills, CAPosts: 1,339Member
    I agree with this 100%:
    http://www.standbyformindcontrol.com/2013/05/star-trek-into-darkness-vs-star-trek-ii-the-wrath-of-khan/

    There hasn't been an ST movie out since Nemesis. And I do not call these 'films' Star Wars either because I find the prequels better than this junk.
    Your right to an opinion does not make your opinion valid.
  • SaquistSaquist1 Posts: 0Member
    It's an aggressive critique of the film but it has validity.
  • biotechbiotech171 Posts: 0Member
    Saquist wrote: »
    The fact is that Enterprise and Vengeance were in an orbit of some kind

    That is not a fact, that is an opinion.

    Do you even know what an orbit is?

    You have had this explained to you so many times, and every time you choose to ignore it so you can carry on with your rant.
  • biotechbiotech171 Posts: 0Member
    99309175428889390137_thumb.jpg
  • oldmangregoldmangreg198 Woodland Hills, CAPosts: 1,339Member
    Ignoring the rants and stuff: considering the Enterprise and Vengeance were next to the moon for a good 10-15 minutes, there is no way the Enterprise should of 'fell' towards Earth like that (in a deleted scene the Kahn sent the Vengeance towards the Enterprise shortly before it entered the atmosphere, which explains why it was seen after Kirk died). No thrusters were keeping them there, and both ships were facing Earth so that rules out impulse engines keeping them there.
    Your right to an opinion does not make your opinion valid.
  • NanoGatorNanoGator1 Posts: 0Member
    None of the orbit rants have anything to do with the movie being fun to watch.
  • oldmangregoldmangreg198 Woodland Hills, CAPosts: 1,339Member
    NanoGator wrote: »
    None of the orbit rants have anything to do with the movie being fun to watch.

    Fun on a generic sci-fi watch-and-forget front.
    And here is some fun reading:
    http://www.dailydot.com/fandom/star-trek-into-darkness-writer-rude-fans/
    Your right to an opinion does not make your opinion valid.
  • DeksDeks200 Posts: 259Member
    NanoGator wrote: »
    That is a LOT of unsupported speculation.

    Automation is not speculation.
    I'm actually stating things that were possible for us in real life for some time now - today we have the capacity to automate over 80% of the global workforce literally over night, while at the same time we are producing overabundance in Human needs and most wants (while others that would logically be well within the scope of SF's technical capabilities, even in TOS - such as highly advanced subspace sensors, automated drones with tractor beams, etc.).

    Conveniently leaving it out from the film that's supposed to be a 'remake' of Trek and set hundreds of years into the future just makes it look pathetically primitive by comparison... then again, scifi films are usually made by artists who understand little to nothing about how science and technology works (let alone human behavior) - and this is why I can no longer even stomach scifi movies at all.
  • biotechbiotech171 Posts: 0Member
    When I was born men were walking on the moon. Now they aren't.

    Just because technology can progress doesn't mean it always will.

    The most popular gun on the planet it still the AK47, and the clue to when that was made is in the title.
  • NanoGatorNanoGator1 Posts: 0Member
    Deks wrote: »
    Automation is not speculation.

    How somebody would use such automation and how practical it is to use IS speculation. "Can" and "Will" are two very different concepts. Which is why... 80% of our workforce is NOT automated.

    Also, I wasn't referring to automation, I was talking about your assessment of Starfleet's "suddenly transport millions of people out of a city" capability.
  • DeksDeks200 Posts: 259Member
    The point is it CAN be done.
    The reason why it's not being done is an outdated socio-economic system we use, coupled with the premise that most of the global population was never educated to keep up with science and technology, or to think critically.

    As for the movie... oh yes, an average time to transport a person is basically in the range of about 10 seconds or less for dematerialization and re-materialization.
    If you mobilize all available transporter hubs across the planet in case of an emergency situation as well as the ones on the starbase and any other potential starship in the area... it wouldn't be a problem to evacuate a whole city of millions in a small amount of time, or at least the general area.

    As if computers of the 23rd century cannot automatically project in seconds the impact destination and how much of the area it will traverse/damage in the process.

    EDIT: Usage of heavy automation for a society such as the one portrayed in Star Trek (that should be more advanced than ours) is simply unavoidable.
    Manual labor slows things down, and its inefficient compared to automation for repetitive and specialized tasks.
    Honestly... these people behave like idiots when they see an autonomous machine - as if its beyond the scope of their capabilities (when they are already in range of ours).
  • NanoGatorNanoGator1 Posts: 0Member
    Yes, I get your point. However "Can" and "Will" (de ja vu...) are NOT the same thing. We're already seeing why it isn't happening now, it stands to reason that they could have their own reasons for not doing it that we're just not privvy to. Reality is already telling you why it's not necessarily going to happen.

    As for the transporterss: you're talking about a sudden and instantaneous transport of a who-knows-how-many people, that requires power, that requires a place to put all those people, and it requires teams of people to direct them OFF the pad so they can get the next batch of people. We've already seen how long it takes the evacuate the Enterprise, now multiply that by at least a thousand.
  • DeksDeks200 Posts: 259Member
    NanoGator wrote: »
    Yes, I get your point. However "Can" and "Will" (de ja vu...) are NOT the same thing. We're already seeing why it isn't happening now, it stands to reason that they could have their own reasons for not doing it that we're just not privvy to. Reality is already telling you why it's not necessarily going to happen.

    Except that its unavoidable. One of the large reasons why many people lost their jobs is the following:
    Recession forces companies to lower operational costs, therefore they switch to automation.
    Its actually cheaper, easier, more cost efficient and faster to automate a job than it is to have Humans do it today.
    In less than 10 years, we will likely experience a global economic collapse at the rate automation is replacing people (MIT predicted it in 2030, but they are probably not taking in all the variables that accelerate the process) - and since Humans mainly do repetitive and highly specialized work (both of which computers surpassed Humans in over 10 years ago), its just a matter of time before production is sky high and purchasing power hits rock bottom (not to mention that about 98% of the global population works on jobs completely unproductive/useless to society as we know it).
    Point: its inevitable - the question that arises is what will be do when it happens.
    Solutions exist, but they depend on the general population being aware of solutions and that there is a better way (which is something that's being attempted now - to educate the populace) - but I'm straying off topic
    As for the transporters: you're talking about a sudden and instantaneous transport of a who-knows-how-many people, that requires power, that requires a place to put all those people, and it requires teams of people to direct them OFF the pad so they can get the next batch of people. We've already seen how long it takes the evacuate the Enterprise, now multiply that by at least a thousand.

    Trek has in abundance. Heck, even we have it in absurd abundance from Geothermal alone (then from solar, orbital solar collectors which were possible in 1980-ies, wind, piezoelectric). Anti-matter reactors as well as orbital solar power, geothermal, etc. would provide stupidly insane amounts of power for Earth in Trek (in the 23rd century) to the point where they can easily waste it in stupidly large amounts without batting an eye.
    Oh you don't have to have a special place to put all those people, just beam them outside the city that's vacant, and have the computer instruct people its an emergency evac (people would be smart enough to understand to get off the pads for the next batch of people) - and besides, we aren't necessarily talking about the entire city (which shouldn't be an issue either way), but rather the projected affected areas of the city.
    Evacuating the Enterprise is not the same thing - besides, which Enterprise exactly (movie or episode) are we talking about?

    And besides, 23rd century or not, cities are bound to have transporter hubs that should be able to move massive amounts of people, similar like 'mass transit' systems.
    Then there are transporters all across the globe, coupled with the ones in orbit that can be used in emergencies.
    The amount of time those 2 ships spent near the moon is enough to ascertain the situation, and by the time the Enterprise started falling towards the Earth (a stupidity beyond reason considering how far away it was), SF would have more than enough time to project the course of BOTH ships, and get things going instead of just disappearing into thin air (a mantra that's becoming tiresome).
  • NanoGatorNanoGator1 Posts: 0Member
    Point: its inevitable

    Inevitable doesn't mean it happens by the year this movie took place. You know what will happen in Star Trek that MIT isn't taking into consideration right now? Space colonization. You know what it will take to colonize space? Lots of resources and amounts of energy we cannot even really conceive of right now.
    Trek has in abundance.

    Starships have an abundance. They use enough power to warp space as part of their cruising mode. Your apartment in the bay? Uh, no. You don't need anti-matter reactors to run the air conditioner. We don't know how they'd plan a city because we don't know the risks of using something like anti-matter reactors. With the level of power you're talking about, we're talking about accidents that would crack the planet's crust. They could easily decide: "Nah, we don't need that much power here. We'll keep it in space where it's safe."
    Oh you don't have to have a special place to put all those people, just beam them outside the city that's vacant, and have the computer instruct people its an emergency evac (people would be smart enough to understand to get off the pads for the next batch of people)

    I think you're assuming everybody would behave like Starfleet officers and not civvies living in San Fransisco. Bear in mind, we live in a society where people get their cars destroyed at train intersections.
    and besides, we aren't necessarily talking about the entire city (which shouldn't be an issue either way), but rather the projected affected areas of the city.

    You're talking about a stupidly large, heavily damaged starship raining debris that started well in orbit with enough power aboard to evaporate the city if the core ruptured. No, the whole city would have to be evac'd.
    Evacuating the Enterprise is not the same thing - besides, which Enterprise exactly (movie or episode) are we talking about?

    The Binars episode where they had minutes to evac the ship and barely got it done. People running to transporters, ppl walking through the umbilical, etc... Despite it being a starbase like the one we've seen in orbit of Earth, it was not *Eep!* *Beep* *Zap* "Oh we're all out, send the ship away!" It turns out even huge starbases don't have enough power or transporter capacity to zap a thousand people out during the threat of a warp core explosion.
    The amount of time those 2 ships spent near the moon is enough to ascertain the situation...

    Nobody on Earth knew he was going to ram the ship into San Fran.
  • biotechbiotech171 Posts: 0Member
    NanoGator wrote: »
    Nobody on Earth knew he was going to ram the ship into San Fran.

    Exactly!

    The enterprise was falling into the ocean, the vengeance still had power.

    How do you evacuate a city in the one minute between Khan missing ramming the enteprise, and him deciding to plot a course for starfleet command?

    I also think the people criticising this film, while praising the voyage home fail to take into account, earth was nearly destroyed, by heavy rain.
  • NanoGatorNanoGator1 Posts: 0Member
    biotech wrote: »
    I also think the people criticising this film, while praising the voyage home fail to take into account, earth was nearly destroyed, by heavy rain.

    Thank you. These sorts of nitpicks, if 'corrected', would not make the movie better. That just wasn't the problem. Nobody said: "Man, this movie was great up until the Vengeance crashed into San Fran and everybody didn't instantly beam out."
  • SaquistSaquist1 Posts: 0Member
    biotech wrote: »
    That is not a fact, that is an opinion.

    Do you even know what an orbit is?

    You have had this explained to you so many times, and every time you choose to ignore it so you can carry on with your rant.

    Orbit: the curved path of a celestial object or spacecraft around a star, planet, or moon, esp. a periodic elliptical revolution.

    Liking the movie doesn't make it right.
    An object in motion stays in motion until acted upon by an outside force.
    An object at rest stays at rest until acted upon by an outside force.

    I ignore only the ignorance in the "explanation" (excuse).
    -Enterprise's relative position with the Moon & Earth was stationary.
    -Enterprise's relative position with Vengeance was stationary.
    -Enterprise's relative position with it's own Debris was stationary.
    -Decelerating from FTL requires retro-fire to hold a relative position near a planet or star.

    +They screw up the distance calling out 237,000 KILOMETERS from Earth which is a 147,400 km short of the moon while showing them adjacent to the moons orbit. (Alex and Orci were quoting the miles)
    +The Earth is 3 times too close in this image.

    1- You've seen The Enterprise fight against the Husnock Warship
    2-You've seen Enterprise drop out of warp at Ohniaka III
    3-You've seen Klingons fight at Qo'nos

    All these times...these ships were within a gravitational influence of the planet.
    They weren't falling...thus they were in orbit. Simple. Logic.
    NanoGator wrote: »
    Thank you. These sorts of nitpicks, if 'corrected', would not make the movie better.

    It's the scenario that devalues the film.
    It's the plot devices and how they are used that erode it's credibility.
    The action was driving the plot instead of the plot driving the action.
    103182.png103183.jpg
  • Chris2005Chris2005675 Posts: 3,096Member
    Well, it would also depend on your FOV as well... for example:
    AS11-44-6548_lrg.jpg
    AMD Ryzen 9 5900X
    Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
    1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
    32 GB RAM
    Windows 11 Pro
  • NanoGatorNanoGator1 Posts: 0Member
    Saquist wrote: »
    It's the scenario that devalues the film.

    It's what you start noticing because you're bored with the film already. Seriously, much bigger plotholes exist in great films that nobody really cares about.
  • SaquistSaquist1 Posts: 0Member
    Chris2005 wrote: »
    Well, it would also depend on your FOV as well... for example:
    AS11-44-6548_lrg.jpg

    Camera lens have the ability to narrow that filed of view. This image is the work of lens of at least 200mm which is what you use to shoot the moon with a DSLR camera. (I do photography too)
    NanoGator wrote: »
    It's what you start noticing because you're bored with the film already. Seriously, much bigger plotholes exist in great films that nobody really cares about.

    Trust me nano...

    I may love Jurassic Park but I did notice that the T-Rex walked over the fense but the car fell down a 100ft cliff.
    It matters.
    103184.jpg
  • Chris2005Chris2005675 Posts: 3,096Member
    Saquist wrote: »
    Camera lens have the ability to narrow that filed of view. This image is the work of lens of at least 200mm which is what you use to shoot the moon with a DSLR camera. (I do photography too)

    Well, yea, but what FOV would give the shot we see in Into Darkness or even if it's possible?
    Saquist wrote: »
    I may love Jurassic Park but I did notice that the T-Rex walked over the fense but the car fell down a 100ft cliff.

    So did I, I was like, "how?"

    Of course, there are other more technical errors, such as the misrepresentation of a Velociraptor, being substituted with a larger species of raptor.
    AMD Ryzen 9 5900X
    Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
    1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
    32 GB RAM
    Windows 11 Pro
  • NanoGatorNanoGator1 Posts: 0Member
    Saquist wrote: »

    I may love Jurassic Park but I did notice that the T-Rex walked over the fense but the car fell down a 100ft cliff.
    It matters.

    Did you sit there spitting hate about the movie until the lights come on or did you just blink a couple of times and go back to your popcorn?
  • bosunbosun62 Posts: 0Member
    All this talk about automation in Trek makes me sad. Am I the only one who remembers "The Ultimate Computer"?

    "M-5. This unit must survive."
  • SaquistSaquist1 Posts: 0Member
    That's why I chose a picture that had a person in relative view with Earth.
    Most of the other shots were magnifications of the earth.

    Remember they scaled up the Enterprise just to make it look bigger in the first Movie.
    JJ probably thought we wouldn't recognize our moon without seeing the Earth clearly.
  • NanoGatorNanoGator1 Posts: 0Member
    Is this a discussion about the size of the Earth in these shots? Or is that part of the orbit discussion?
  • SaquistSaquist1 Posts: 0Member
    NanoGator wrote: »
    Did you sit there spitting hate about the movie until the lights come on or did you just blink a couple of times and go back to your popcorn?

    Much like the scene where Kirk is kicking the nuclear reactor...I laughed and executed a face palm.

    It just depends on how big the gaff is and how many gaffs a movie makes.
    Or how seriously the film takes itself. That's hard to judge with Abrams-Trek. Most of the time I consider it a parody. But I don't like parody much because I prefer "Ha-ha" funny not "Corny Funny" or "Painful Funny" (Like The Office or Ron Burgundy )

    I like Galaxy Quest.
    Didn't like Space-balls.

    Galaxy Quest still utilized good writing, character tropes, themes and consistency while poking fun at it's own origins yet managing to take itself seriously too. Redshirts, females that did little or nothing and scorned type-cast actors all rolled up in an original take on a nostalgic show long since past. So what ever errors Galaxy Quest and Jurassic park may have I over look because there was more good than bad and there was more effort.
  • Chris2005Chris2005675 Posts: 3,096Member
    Saquist wrote: »
    That's why I chose a picture that had a person in relative view with Earth.
    Most of the other shots were magnifications of the earth.

    Remember they scaled up the Enterprise just to make it look bigger in the first Movie.
    JJ probably thought we wouldn't recognize our moon without seeing the Earth clearly.

    Yea, although, I do have some friends who swear it's the same size as the prime-TOS Enterprise...
    bosun wrote: »
    All this talk about automation in Trek makes me sad. Am I the only one who remembers "The Ultimate Computer"?

    "M-5. This unit must survive."

    Well, M-5 was almost self-aware in a manner of speaking... it wasn't simply running mindless computer programming...
    AMD Ryzen 9 5900X
    Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
    1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
    32 GB RAM
    Windows 11 Pro
  • biotechbiotech171 Posts: 0Member
    Saquist wrote: »
    -Enterprise's relative position with the Moon & Earth was stationary. .

    No, it only appeared stationary, have you ever been on a plane?

    When you are taking off the runway looks like it is going by so fast, because you are close to it, once you are 7 miles up, the ground looks like it is crawling under you, despite you going much faster than take off speed, and if you look at the horizon, it looks stationary, and the horizon on earth when you are 7 miles up is probably a lot nearer than the two ships and the moon in the film, this is known as parallax.
    Saquist wrote: »
    -Enterprise's relative position with Vengeance was stationary..
    They were travelling at the same speed, of course their relative positions would be stationary.
    Saquist wrote: »
    -Enterprise's relative position with it's own Debris was stationary..
    Just because something breaks off the ship would not make it slow down in a vacuum, this is basic science.
    Weight is irrelevant when there is no atmosphere, still if you don't believe me, just google the hammer and feather dropped on the moon.
    Saquist wrote: »
    -Decelerating from FTL requires retro-fire to hold a relative position near a planet or star.
    .

    That maybe or may not be necessary, but the whole point is that they weren't.

    They were not stationary, and they were not in orbit.

    I know you will never grasp this fact, but its always worth pointing out.
Sign In or Register to comment.