Star Trek Into Darkness - Images, Videos, Discussion, etc

[Nebula]

I think I know why JJ had the ship crash on Alcatraz

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcatraz_%28TV_series%29

btw the island measures 1,675 feet (511 m) by 590 feet (180 m) and is 135 feet (41 m) at highest point during mean tide

[Shadowknight1]

Hm, then this shot should be a good start.  Unless, of course, the Vengeance is miles away from Alcatraz in this shot.

[Bones]

If it's true then JJ was like "  :argh: I shall have my vengeance, I composed such an awesome tune for the main titles and now no one's gonna hear it cuz it's been canceled  :argh: I shall throw a starship at the damn alcatraz for wasting my time with the series"

[Shadowknight1]

LOL or it's simply a coincidence since Alcatraz AND Starfleet Command are in San Francisco.

[Nebula]

It could be a COINCIDENCE that he took ADVANTAGE of. xD

haha anyway... I think we can guess the size of the ship now... in the frames of it crashing on the island.

[moed]

That's a bit naive, saying there's nothing wrong.  Convoluted contradictory canon, cheesy entire 23rd century... let's be honest, if you showed a new person the Prime timeline, you'd get comments along the likes of:

1.  TOS is extremely campy, no wonder it was cancelled.
2.  TNG had 80's gym clothes in the future.  WTF?  And most of the first three seasons sucked.
3.  DS9... well I don't have many complaints about DS9.  Started up slowly though.
4.  Voyager had its super campy moments like TOS.
5.  ENT... well you all know.

If you're going to defend your franchise, drop the rose-tinted glasses first.

I like wearing rose-tinted glasses... that's what Gene Roddenberry kind of had in mind when he created Star Trek in the first place.

As to all your 5 above listed "points" let me just say - no shit dude - tell me something I don't know. What I was talking about, in essence, was the idea of what Trek is all about... old and new. Who seriously gives two craps about the campyness, or cheesiness, or whatever. It's the love of the idea that makes this site and every other thing related to Trek even friggin' exist.

I love the old, and I love the new. They're just different, that's all. I just really miss the old. It's all still Trek though and that's the key.

[FarShot]

What I'm saying, and especially with the "rose-tinted glasses" thing, is that prime universe Star Trek is far from perfect.  Saying there's nothing wrong with it is naive.

And no, Gene Roddenberry wasn't that optimistic.  How are we supposed to get to utopia?  Apparently it took WW3 and 600 million deaths in open warfare.  That part isn't particularly nice.

I'm one who would say that the prime timeline is "old and tired" as you put it.  Apparently for me to think that, there must be something wrong with me, again, as you put it.

[Joshmaul]

And no, Gene Roddenberry wasn't that optimistic.  How are we supposed to get to utopia?  Apparently it took WW3 and 600 million deaths in open warfare.  That part isn't particularly nice.

Roddenberry was five years dead when FC came out. The "last world war" in the Roddenverse, which happened six decades before the Third World War mentioned in FC, was the Eugenics Wars. Chalk it up to another B&B retcon, heh.

[Tuskin38]

You forgetting that World War 3 was mentioned in Encounter at Farpoint?

[Joshmaul]

You forgetting that World War 3 was mentioned in Encounter at Farpoint?

The "post-atomic horror"...good point.

[moed]

What I'm saying, and especially with the "rose-tinted glasses" thing, is that prime universe Star Trek is far from perfect.  Saying there's nothing wrong with it is naive.

And no, Gene Roddenberry wasn't that optimistic.  How are we supposed to get to utopia?  Apparently it took WW3 and 600 million deaths in open warfare.  That part isn't particularly nice.

I'm one who would say that the prime timeline is "old and tired" as you put it.  Apparently for me to think that, there must be something wrong with me, again, as you put it.

I realize that the remark "just something wrong with the people that thought it was old and tired", that I made was too all-encompassing and for that, I humbly apologize.  That was not at all my intent.

And you're partially right, Gene Roddenberry wasn't that optimistic, he instead was extremely idealistic - something that I think if put more in practice, would make all things in life a little bit better.  I met and chatted with him at length at a convention in 1988 and it was an awesome experience.  He was more optimistic than you would tend to believe considering that he went through WW2 and was an LA police officer.

I still feel that my statement in saying that there was nothing wrong with the prime universe Trek rings true. On the objective side, there were obviously tons of holes in much of it, but once again, that's not what I was getting at, and I'm not going to go into specifics of what I mean by that as it would take too long. I'm sure there are (and will be) mistakes and inconsistencies in the JJ Trek also... but who cares, it's still Star Trek - what we love.   
 

[Shadowknight1]

I realize that the remark "just something wrong with the people that thought it was old and tired", that I made was too all-encompassing and for that, I humbly apologize.  That was not at all my intent.

And you're partially right, Gene Roddenberry wasn't that optimistic, he instead was extremely idealistic - something that I think if put more in practice, would make all things in life a little bit better.  I met and chatted with him at length at a convention in 1988 and it was an awesome experience.  He was more optimistic than you would tend to believe considering that he went through WW2 and was an LA police officer.

I still feel that my statement in saying that there was nothing wrong with the prime universe Trek rings true. On the objective side, there were obviously tons of holes in much of it, but once again, that's not what I was getting at, and I'm not going to go into specifics of what I mean by that as it would take too long. I'm sure there are (and will be) mistakes and inconsistencies in the JJ Trek also... but who cares, it's still Star Trek - what we love.   
 

QFT.

[FarShot]

I was not trying to single you out by the way.  Your comment got me thinking about a lot of the silly stuff behind Old vs. New arguments though, and that's what I was talking about.  I love the prime timeline to death.  But it's also an old relic beat to death with hardly any room for originality.  If I were put in charge of the franchise post-ENT, I probably would have done what JJ did, minus a few lens flares and then immediately segueing into a new series honestly examining both science fiction ideas and society problems in the modern world.  I hate the argument that anything new and overwriting means your not a real fan or that Gene Roddenberry is rolling in his grave over it.  Frankly, I think if Gene saw that he had a rabid following that made death threats against people that varied the Star Trek formula he wouldn't want anything to do with them.  If Gene wanted a tolerant world, I think step one is being tolerant to the people who don't see eye to eye on that tolerant world.  You're not getting off to a good start otherwise.

[Darkthunder]

I was not trying to single you out by the way.  Your comment got me thinking about a lot of the silly stuff behind Old vs. New arguments though, and that's what I was talking about.  I love the prime timeline to death.  But it's also an old relic beat to death with hardly any room for originality.  If I were put in charge of the franchise post-ENT, I probably would have done what JJ did, minus a few lens flares and then immediately segueing into a new series honestly examining both science fiction ideas and society problems in the modern world.  I hate the argument that anything new and overwriting means your not a real fan or that Gene Roddenberry is rolling in his grave over it.  Frankly, I think if Gene saw that he had a rabid following that made death threats against people that varied the Star Trek formula he wouldn't want anything to do with them.  If Gene wanted a tolerant world, I think step one is being tolerant to the people who don't see eye to eye on that tolerant world.  You're not getting off to a good start otherwise.

My turn for QFT!

You can't claim to be a protector of Trek, yet not practice the very ideals of Trek. Tolerance is a huge part of Star Trek's ideals.

[captain_obvious]

My turn for QFT!

You can't claim to be a protector of Trek, yet not practice the very ideals of Trek. Tolerance is a huge part of Star Trek's ideals.

QFT, Number three.

[086gf]

The first non-spoiler review from TrekMovie.

http://trekmovie.com/2013/05/03/trekmovie-com-review-of-star-trek-into-darkness/

[Shadowknight1]

My turn for QFT!

You can't claim to be a protector of Trek, yet not practice the very ideals of Trek. Tolerance is a huge part of Star Trek's ideals.

IDIC: Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations

Also: "Young minds, fresh ideas, be tolerant."

[ChiefBrex]

This is one time I have to go against the grain. I hate the new Trek stuff. The ship designs are awful, the story in the first movie was awful. I'm disgusted with the loss of Vulcan. I'm shocked at the apparent relationship between Uhura and Spock (that came out of NOWHERE). I'm appalled that a warp core on a starship would be divided into a hundred segments and fired out of the ship like bloody projectiles. I detest phasers being turned into 23rd-century rail guns mounted on the ship's hull. And what was up with those semi- seagull wing doors of the shuttlebay? Or the fact that Engineering looked like a damn Brewery. And don't even get me started on the fact that Kirk went from Cadet, to outlaw, to Captain in the span of 2 hours. I mean....that's just implausible, in ANY military organization.

You want to know what was good about Star Trek XI? Chekov and the end credits. That's. It.

With respect to tolerance, and upholding Trek ideals...there is one thing people consistently threw in my face when I stood up for the ideals of the Roddenberry era...which is that Star Trek is nothing but entertainment value. That's what I see JJ's vision of Star Trek is. And frankly, I don't like it. I don't have to be tolerant of it. If there's anything that JJ's vision of Star Trek stands for, it's this: Sex, Explosions, Intrigue, and excessive lens flares, coupled with crappy writing, crappy designing, and barely decent acting - sells big bucks.

So, if people want to applaud the new Trek, let them. Just shows how low their standards really truly are for any form of entertainment. I, for one, prefer, love, and will continue to prefer the old vs. the new. I look forward to ripping the new movie to shreds like I did the last aborption named Star Trek. My only wish is that people would let it die after this. Let Trek have SOME form of dignity in the end.

Anyway, that's my two cents. And I agree with moed whole-heartedly.

[Nebula]

warp core on a starship would be divided into a hundred segments and fired out of the ship like bloody projectiles.

Umm sorry but all trek did that... we just never saw the whole system ejected.... just the core... their are also things called anti-mater containment pods. (if you look at the TNG tech manual you see they are able to be ejected.)

I detest phasers being turned into 23rd-century rail guns mounted on the ship's hull.

They looked fine to me... its a mix between TOS and TMP styles... you notice it more cause they seem to fire slower. (only thing I didn't like was the reuses of the B5 starfury gun sound effects)

And what was up with those semi- seagull wing doors of the shuttlebay?

Sorry what?

Engineering looked like a damn Brewery.

Haha yeah... though I can kinda see past it.

Captain in the span of 2 hours. I mean....that's just implausible, in ANY military organization.

Gee more like a few weeks... also their is a thing call field promotion. Where does outlaw even come in?

[FarShot]

Sorry, we kinda got into a discussion on this stuff.  We've got varied opinions all over I suppose.