Or just where the hell is the rest of fleet for that matter. The Federation is about to go to war with the Klingons and yet no ships were stationed at Earth for defence?? Even something as small as a shuttle craft attracted a squadron of BoP's.
Or how about the transwarp beaming. Why need new battlecruisers when all you have to do is transwarp-beam a bunch of torpedoes to Qo'nos and call it a day.
That's sort of the pandoras box they opened in the first movie.
Along with that the issue of transporter targeting. They can target a planet lightyears away but once again when they want to beam Khan up...the "moving to much" excuse rears it's ugly head once again.
Aside from making the film take place over a longer time frame, fixing the physics glitches, and some minor dialogue tweaks to make the whole thing better I think the way the movie could have been vastly improved is if instead of it being rehash of Wrath of Kahn is if it went more along the lines of space seed.
Instead of having Kahn full on betray them, have Kahn realize that no matter what he can't win after giving a real fight between Kirk & Co against corrupt Admiral Marcus, and have Kahn give the noble sacrifice. Imagine Kahn saving the big E instead so now Kirk feels an obligation to him, and Kahn's "final request" is that Kirk find his people a new home and let them bury him there. So then Kirk refreezes Kahn, and delivers the augmentcicles to Seti-Alpha-V, then you show them after some period of time and Kahn is alive, or just home him wake up right as they refreeze him to link back to the superblood thing. In that way you can have the timelines reconverge to have Wrath of Kahn still occur, and it eliminates the stupid garbage truck scene. Honesty the whole script felt rushed to me ruining what could have been a great movie.
I agree with that whole heartedly. It would have been more original and I would seen a different movie rather than an obnoxious rehash of Wrath of Khan. I though that's what I was getting untill I got to the end...
In Star Trek Into Darkness, they exposed the ship to the natives when they came out of the water, how the heck did they get it in the water without the natives seeing it?
A simple enough explanation is that they submerged out at sea and moved inland while underwater.
I did more-or-less enjoy the movie, but I have to say they made a really bizarre choice to be TWOK, then NOT be TWOK. It resulted in corn. Spock's mimicry of a line from TWOK made me wince, but it didn't bother my wife at all (she's not familiar with the classic Trek movies). By the end it felt like they had forgotten to hire Cumberbatch for more than a handful of scenes... which actually is kinda sad, because the "Startfleet is turning militaristic" thread was a good setup. Eh, oh well. At least the warp core was really cool.
I thought the "warp core" was some kind of a reactor from another planet or belonging in a different movie...
if you're referring to the shots of the warp core behind scotty when he resigns then what you are looking at is a real reactor, the NIF fusion test device in lawrence livermore national laboratory.
The set design was horrible, given the budget this movie had why did they chose to shoot on borrowed sets so much? They could have easily built sets based on places like the NIF, but that interior tower shot looked like was in a mall.
The set design was horrible, given the budget this movie had why did they chose to shoot on borrowed sets so much? They could have easily built sets based on places like the NIF, but that interior tower shot looked like was in a mall.
I honestly think some people go to see movies just to hate them, to see how many things they can pick apart from them.
Well, one has to be impartial... for the most part the movie was alright, still not my kind of Star Trek and the visual effects were astonishing for the most part, can't wait to get it on blu-ray. I've always found that movies look less than ideal in theaters.
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
Well, one has to be impartial... for the most part the movie was alright, still not my kind of Star Trek and the visual effects were astonishing for the most part, can't wait to get it on blu-ray. I've always found that movies look less than ideal in theaters.
And most of the time it depends on the movie. For instance Avatar looked amazing on IMAX 3D. When the missiles hit Hometree you could really see the shockwaves coming at you. The movements were also more pronounced in 3D than otherwise.
As for JJ Trek, it's true that the lens flares defeat the purpose of having 3D but then again the whole film was not shot to take full advantage of the format anyway.
I honestly think some people go to see movies just to hate them, to see how many things they can pick apart from them.
If they hate it, they wouldn't have gone and see it in the first place. I went in knowing what to expect, but boy did JJ manage to exceed my expectation when it comes to Trek. If you liked it, you're most welcome to talk about what you liked about it, nobody's stopping you. It's just that what good point one can raise people will still undermine it, simply because JJ Trek is neither the Trek we need nor the Trek we deserve. :cool:
Really? Admiral Marcus finds Khan, instead of Kirk. Admiral Marcus is basically pulling an Admiral Cartwright from ST:VI...
The ending of the movie with Kirk dying from radiation poisoning in order to put the core back online, him knocking Scotty out... similar to Spock nerve pinching McCoy... then the little Kirk/Spock glass scene... then Spock yelling "Khan!"
Overall, I like the movie, it was just too familiar, in my mind.
The ending of the movie with Kirk dying from radiation poisoning in order to put the core back online, him knocking Scotty out... similar to Spock nerve pinching McCoy... then the little Kirk/Spock glass scene... then Spock yelling "Khan!"
Yes, that sequence is straight out of TWOK. It doesn't turn STID into TWOK though.
Yes, that sequence is straight out of TWOK. It doesn't turn STID into TWOK though.
Maybe not TWOK, but it was borrowed from an already existing film, that's what most people seem to have in common, is that Into Darkness borrows from various movies before it.
I didn't say it was 100% TWOK, I said it reminded me of TWOK, because it was pretty much a rehash of the scene from TWOK.
Having seen it on Saturday, my only real complaint is the whole lets-duplicate-TWOK's-ending-by-reversing-it gambit. It just wasn't necessary for the overall story. The way they handled Khan being reintroduced made some sense, and Cumberbatch should get an Oscar for Best-Portrayal-of-Khan-by-an-Actor-Other-than-Ricardo-Montalban. I mean, really, there's no topping Montalban, and Cumberbatch thankfully goes an entirely different direction with Khan.
I did find it kind of interesting that the way the movie ends does NOT set up Kirk and Khan as these deadly lifelong enemies. Khan's grudge this time was against Marcus, not Kirk, and since Kirk didn't go and strand him on Ceti Alpha V...
When it comes to the Enterprise, I didn't really care for the redesign of the impulse engines at the end of the movie... the impulse engines were fine... it was those eyesore nacelles that needed changing...
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
When it comes to the Enterprise, I didn't really care for the redesign of the impulse engines at the end of the movie... the impulse engines were fine... it was those eyesore nacelles that needed changing...
I find that I'm probably one of the only few that doesn't mind the nacelles, although I do believe they need their size shrunk down a bit. The secondary hull is the biggest culprit in my opinion. I don't mind the saucer.
Your right to an opinion does not make your opinion valid.
Gave up reading it after the first few sentences, like I said, some people just want to sit and nitpick.
If I felt like giving up a few hours of my life I could probably refute most of what he was saying, which he probably could himself if he paid attention to the film more, instead of composing a list of why it sucked whilst supposedly watching the film.
The thing that pisses me off more than anything is when they talk about what a 23rd century ship can take, and what it cant.
We are talking about technology 300 years in advance of where we are now.
Hell it took 70 years or so from the first powered plane flight to landing on the moon!
They can accept that big arsed saucer not breaking off from stress every time they go to warp, but freak out at the thought of it being in an atmosphere, or god forbid, water!
I am just glad the internet wasn't around when star wars first came out.
"What, they aren't going to fire on that pod because it has no life signs? They just fired like 50,000 shots at it five minutes ago!"
The thing that pisses me off more than anything is when they talk about what a 23rd century ship can take, and what it cant.
I agree with Biotech. We've got an FTL starship that hangs out in places with serious gravitational forces and, likely anyway, intense pressures (exploring nebulas...?), but the idea of it going underwater is just too much scifi? I don't remember these complaints about the Defiant getting stuck in a nebula with hull ruptures.
There are lots of things about this movie to complain about, the 'submarine' bit... not so much.
I also agree with his comment about people trying a little too hard to nitpick. However, I'm not as strongly against it... I see it as a symptom of the movie failing to entertain on some levels.
Tobias had originally shared the article on Facebook, that's how I came across it.
Well, Neil deGrasse Tyson praised Star Trek for it's attempts at portraying real physics... I just think the underwater scene is a bit of a stretch... but it'd be best to get a real physicists view on the idea, assuming the hull is made up of something stronger than metals we have today.
I nitpick movies I like, lol.
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
I just think the underwater scene is a bit of a stretch... but it'd be best to get a real physicists view on the idea, assuming the hull is made up of something stronger than metals we have today.
.. and the magic 'structural integrity field'...
I'm sorry, I still don't understand the problem with this premise.
Posts
And the noise?
Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
32 GB RAM
Windows 11 Pro
That's sort of the pandoras box they opened in the first movie.
Along with that the issue of transporter targeting. They can target a planet lightyears away but once again when they want to beam Khan up...the "moving to much" excuse rears it's ugly head once again.
A simple enough explanation is that they submerged out at sea and moved inland while underwater.
I did more-or-less enjoy the movie, but I have to say they made a really bizarre choice to be TWOK, then NOT be TWOK. It resulted in corn. Spock's mimicry of a line from TWOK made me wince, but it didn't bother my wife at all (she's not familiar with the classic Trek movies). By the end it felt like they had forgotten to hire Cumberbatch for more than a handful of scenes... which actually is kinda sad, because the "Startfleet is turning militaristic" thread was a good setup. Eh, oh well. At least the warp core was really cool.
Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
32 GB RAM
Windows 11 Pro
if you're referring to the shots of the warp core behind scotty when he resigns then what you are looking at is a real reactor, the NIF fusion test device in lawrence livermore national laboratory.
Attachment not found.
Attachment not found.
as for those shots of kirk climbing inside the radioactive zone to realign those parts i guess that was all cgi.
This is pretty cool...
http://www.videocopilot.net/blog/2013/05/star-trek-into-darkness-more/
Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
32 GB RAM
Windows 11 Pro
Frequent updates at our Discord channel!
Because everyone had like 4 different uniforms.
Not unlike the military...
Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
32 GB RAM
Windows 11 Pro
Well, one has to be impartial... for the most part the movie was alright, still not my kind of Star Trek and the visual effects were astonishing for the most part, can't wait to get it on blu-ray. I've always found that movies look less than ideal in theaters.
Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
32 GB RAM
Windows 11 Pro
Not even close.
I'm afraid you're right.
And most of the time it depends on the movie. For instance Avatar looked amazing on IMAX 3D. When the missiles hit Hometree you could really see the shockwaves coming at you. The movements were also more pronounced in 3D than otherwise.
As for JJ Trek, it's true that the lens flares defeat the purpose of having 3D but then again the whole film was not shot to take full advantage of the format anyway.
If they hate it, they wouldn't have gone and see it in the first place. I went in knowing what to expect, but boy did JJ manage to exceed my expectation when it comes to Trek. If you liked it, you're most welcome to talk about what you liked about it, nobody's stopping you. It's just that what good point one can raise people will still undermine it, simply because JJ Trek is neither the Trek we need nor the Trek we deserve. :cool:
Really? Admiral Marcus finds Khan, instead of Kirk. Admiral Marcus is basically pulling an Admiral Cartwright from ST:VI...
The ending of the movie with Kirk dying from radiation poisoning in order to put the core back online, him knocking Scotty out... similar to Spock nerve pinching McCoy... then the little Kirk/Spock glass scene... then Spock yelling "Khan!"
Overall, I like the movie, it was just too familiar, in my mind.
This is funny though:
http://io9.com/star-trek-into-darkness-the-spoiler-faq-508927844
Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
32 GB RAM
Windows 11 Pro
So, nothing about TWOK here.
Yes, that sequence is straight out of TWOK. It doesn't turn STID into TWOK though.
I rest my case.
Maybe not TWOK, but it was borrowed from an already existing film, that's what most people seem to have in common, is that Into Darkness borrows from various movies before it.
I didn't say it was 100% TWOK, I said it reminded me of TWOK, because it was pretty much a rehash of the scene from TWOK.
I don't understand...
Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
32 GB RAM
Windows 11 Pro
I did find it kind of interesting that the way the movie ends does NOT set up Kirk and Khan as these deadly lifelong enemies. Khan's grudge this time was against Marcus, not Kirk, and since Kirk didn't go and strand him on Ceti Alpha V...
Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
32 GB RAM
Windows 11 Pro
That article sums up most of my misgivings about the movie and JJ Trek by extension.
I find that I'm probably one of the only few that doesn't mind the nacelles, although I do believe they need their size shrunk down a bit. The secondary hull is the biggest culprit in my opinion. I don't mind the saucer.
Gave up reading it after the first few sentences, like I said, some people just want to sit and nitpick.
If I felt like giving up a few hours of my life I could probably refute most of what he was saying, which he probably could himself if he paid attention to the film more, instead of composing a list of why it sucked whilst supposedly watching the film.
The thing that pisses me off more than anything is when they talk about what a 23rd century ship can take, and what it cant.
We are talking about technology 300 years in advance of where we are now.
Hell it took 70 years or so from the first powered plane flight to landing on the moon!
They can accept that big arsed saucer not breaking off from stress every time they go to warp, but freak out at the thought of it being in an atmosphere, or god forbid, water!
I am just glad the internet wasn't around when star wars first came out.
"What, they aren't going to fire on that pod because it has no life signs? They just fired like 50,000 shots at it five minutes ago!"
And so on for two hours.
I agree with Biotech. We've got an FTL starship that hangs out in places with serious gravitational forces and, likely anyway, intense pressures (exploring nebulas...?), but the idea of it going underwater is just too much scifi? I don't remember these complaints about the Defiant getting stuck in a nebula with hull ruptures.
There are lots of things about this movie to complain about, the 'submarine' bit... not so much.
I also agree with his comment about people trying a little too hard to nitpick. However, I'm not as strongly against it... I see it as a symptom of the movie failing to entertain on some levels.
Well, Neil deGrasse Tyson praised Star Trek for it's attempts at portraying real physics... I just think the underwater scene is a bit of a stretch... but it'd be best to get a real physicists view on the idea, assuming the hull is made up of something stronger than metals we have today.
I nitpick movies I like, lol.
Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
32 GB RAM
Windows 11 Pro
.. and the magic 'structural integrity field'...
I'm sorry, I still don't understand the problem with this premise.