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

[Shadowknight1]

Makes me wonder if Scotty'll try to invent the combadge 100 years early just to make communications easier.   And I'm not sure how much the props were changed.  Assuming the phaser prop that'll be coming with the Into Darkness blu-ray from Amazon is identical to the ones in the movie, I might be able to tell you in a few months.  But the communicators and tricorders looked the same to me.

[Saquist]

So, just got back from a second viewing.  Still love it.  Took my sister, a nonTrek fan.  She did know OF Khan, so she was surprised when Cumberbatch said "My name...is KHAN."  And her reaction to Kirk's DEATH, not his death and rebirth: "Oh my god...that is bullshit."  These were both quiet reactions, the small ones that I know are true reactions from her.

And Saquist, while I understand your feelings, I have to disagree on one point.  Khan had NO reason to expect the torpedoes to be armed.  He didn't expect skullduggery from the logical Vulcan.  And I still found Kirk's percussive maintenance of the warp core more plausible than Spock pulling undefinable black shadows from a glowing ray of light.  Seriously guys, you should know.  WHAT WAS SPOCK DOING?!

I'm not in your head Shadow but in my head kicking a nuclear reactor is absolutely impossible as a likely solution.  When I told my cousin tonight (he finally noticed and laughed at the absurdity.
At least there is the implication that he is preforming a technical task.

Not even Chewbacca got any where slamming a spanner into the Falcon's guts.
-----------
We're going to watch a set of movies soon.
First Star Trek II:  So he can compare what happened in this film to the original article.
Batman Returns: Because he's convinced there is no other Batman but Dark Knight as the Best Batman
Superman II:  So he understands the potential rip-off factor of Man of Steel.

[Shadowknight1]

That's nice Saquist, except for the fact that all that needed to be done was realign the thing(from the look of it, it seemed like the dilithium matrix).  Percussive maintenance would be all that was required here.  Seriously, that's the only thing that was keeping the core from reactivating.  Not exactly a hard task to push something back into proper position.

Chewbacca's problem was he was trying to fix something THAT WAS ALREADY FIXED.  All that happened was a stormtrooper flipped a switch.  It wasn't exactly needing heavy maintenance.

And I'm sorry, but you're showing him Batman RETURNS to try and prove that there's a better Batman than The Dark Knight?  Don't get me wrong, I love it, but no.  The 1989 Batman movie was the best, at least of the live action Batmans.  The animated series of the 90's had the best portrayal of Batman period though.

[Bones]

While I agree about simplicity of warp core realigning (yes, it wasn't broken, just needed a push) I wouldn't dare to punch it ... not to mention kick it several times... you know, something about NUCLEAR DETONATIONS 

but I guess it was done in the similiar way to what Chewbacca did in ESB, both were desperate, only difference is that in Star Trek more lives were at stake, so they threw in Kirk's barely standing on his feets due to radiation, dramatic music and dramatic action (Kirk kicking piece of warp drive) it's kinda stupid in technical way because I would never smash my car's engine with hammer, hoping it will magicaly start. It's safe to say it was done simply to show the one final effort to save the crew.

But then again, it's not a technical manual of Warp Drive repair, it's an action movie set in space, there's bound to be stupid technical misfits because people who make the movie are far from engineers, physicists etc. they are story tellers and movie makers, besides some of the tech spoken in Trek is only theoretical and non-existant. Best example to support my last sentence is "the cold fusion device" Spock is using to freeze volcano These guys were using cool words to name a cool device but didn't know cold fusion isn't actually cold

[Darkthunder]

I seem to recall, O'Brien occasionally used the "kick it until it works" solution on DS9. I did not see a fault with Kirk's "death scene". I thought it was handled better than the scene it pays "homage" to. Never did see a warp core in Spock's death scene in Wrath of Khan. Instead, we saw some weird small cylinder, with a glowing beam of light, apparently spewing radiation.

[Shadowknight1]

I seem to recall, O'Brien occasionally used the "kick it until it works" solution on DS9. I did not see a fault with Kirk's "death scene". I thought it was handled better than the scene it pays "homage" to. Never did see a warp core in Spock's death scene in Wrath of Khan. Instead, we saw some weird small cylinder, with a glowing beam of light, apparently spewing radiation.

Yeah, O'Brien was a huge proponent of percussive maintenance.   But yeah, I agree, Pine sold that scene.  No matter that he came back in five minutes("He's only MOSTLY dead."), Kirk's death in this movie was more poignant and far more fitting than being squished under a bridge.

Bones, Saquist...stop bringing up "nuclear" when referring to the Enterprise's warp core.  I thought you guys were Trekkies, these ships don't use nuclear power anymore.   But seriously speaking, if a little kick would upset the matter/antimatter reaction to the point of a core breach, then the warp core is more fragile than an ice swan.  And also seriously speaking, I am so glad that they relocated the main section of engineering and gave us a better looking warp core this time around.  It actually looked like a reactor that was the lifeblood of the ship rather than a flashing glowing tube or, in the case of the 2009 film, beer vats.

[Bones]

Yeah, O'Brien was a huge proponent of percussive maintenance.  But yeah, I agree, Pine sold that scene.  No matter that he came back in five minutes("He's only MOSTLY dead."), Kirk's death in this movie was more poignant and far more fitting than being squished under a bridge.

Bones, Saquist...stop bringing up "nuclear" when referring to the Enterprise's warp core.  I thought you guys were Trekkies, these ships don't use nuclear power anymore.  But seriously speaking, if a little kick would upset the matter/antimatter reaction to the point of a core breach, then the warp core is more fragile than an ice swan.  And also seriously speaking, I am so glad that they relocated the main section of engineering and gave us a better looking warp core this time around.  It actually looked like a reactor that was the lifeblood of the ship rather than a flashing glowing tube or, in the case of the 2009 film, beer vats.

Indeed it looked really good, felt like a reactor too

by nuclear I mean yes it is not nuclear power but when it goes kaboom it makes a lot of noise and the explosion warp core could produce would make Duke Nukem wet his badass pants, but that's true, it is doubtful that reactor like that wouldn't stand a chance againt human feets while it is built to endure even the harshest battles. As i said, while the scene didn't look entirely right technically, it served it's purpose perfectly, to show how desperate Kirk was to save his friends and crew.

...and yes I agree about Kirk's death, it brought tears to my eyes when I saw it. Pine and Quinto played it really nicely, even tho I knew they can't simply kill main character without bringing him back... i even remember when my brother said something about ruined movie and i've said something about magic blood that will save him, granted, that was a predictable one since in the very first 10 minutes we can see how Khan's blood saves little girl but still those two made the scene great.

We're going to watch a set of movies soon.
First Star Trek II:  So he can compare what happened in this film to the original article.
Batman Returns: Because he's convinced there is no other Batman but Dark Knight as the Best Batman
Superman II:  So he understands the potential rip-off factor of Man of Steel.

It all depends on taste and factor of growing up with certain movies in background, i.e. i grew up on Tim Burton's Batman and it will always be the best but Nolan's Dark Knight is completely different type of movie, Burton has a unique style with lots of grotesque, exaggeration, fancyfullnes and comedy, it's hard to describe for me (sudden lack of proper english ) while Nolan's Batman is more like action-thriller movie, see the difference ? Burton went Dracula style and Nolan went Ninja style ;)

[Saquist]

Remember guys that anything that involves an atom at the atomic level can be called nuclear.  There is even nuclear medicine.
Antimatter reacting to matter to mutually annihilate is just as much a nuclear reaction as fusion or fission.
------
We struggled to compare the two batman movies but I think until he watches them again we're really not going to get him to give burtons a fair shake

Seriously, that's the only thing that was keeping the core from reactivating.

That's a very colorful spin but there is nothing in a supercolider that would react favorably to being kicked.  It's not designed to be struck or manhandled.  It's  a precision instrument of  ion pumps, multi-pole magnents, electric eyes and emitters designed to colide within an area thousands of times smaller than the width of a hair.  It takes a computer to align it accurately.


Just like Han Solo instructed Chewie to replace the "Negative Power Coupling" the same thing would occur with a nuclear supercolider.  In case of emergency you're going to be replacing parts, not kicking and not fixing parts.  This is because one part has SO MANY Componets fine tuned to do what they do.  Like manually searching for a break in a circuit board it would be extremely difficult to isolate the problem quickly or reliably fix the problem.

Your car has more of a chance of being kicked into the precise alignment than a supercolider.  And  your car is computer aligned too.
You guys are the difference between GearHeads and Engineers.  I've been in the structural field and now I'm back in the Mechanical field where tolerances are 1/1000 of an inch or smaller and Datum points accurately define flatness by 3 different edges or surfaces for one critical position of interfacing parts.  There is a reason why there is geometric tolerance & dimensioning with just the drilling tools I work with.  It takes an engineer not a mechanic.

----
Ultimately I understand you guys would like to believe that this film can be taken seriously.  I think that undermines your sense of reality.  What I'm seeing is the very disinformation I spoke of earlier.  What if this multi-Gigawatt generator's real problem was an electrical failure? Kirk Kicks it and is electrocuted (THE SYSTEM WAS ON when he started his "percussive maintenance")  That alone, not ensuring that a power plant was off before a maintenance would kill most electricians instantly.

Movies are often conceived in a nonintellectual method.  Loving the film is one thing I can appreciate.  I love passion and in the right measure I like Entertainment.  But seeking reality in the film to justify your love for it only gives great credit to the film by taking away from reality.

[Shadowknight1]

Remember guys that anything that involves an atom at the atomic level can be called nuclear.  There is even nuclear medicine.
Antimatter reacting too matter to mutually annihilate is just as much a nuclear reaction as fusion or fission.

We struggled to compare the two batman movies but I think until he watches them again we're really not going to get him to give burtons a fair shake

That's a shame.  Burton's Batman IS the superior Batman.  He's dark, broody, and doesn't have to sound like he smoked 50 pounds of cigarettes to sound intimidating.  Don't get me wrong, I love the Nolan movies, but they're not the best representation of the Batman.  Technically, neither are the Burton movies.  Probably the BEST Batman period IS the animated series Batman.  That show not only portrayed him as a martial artist badass, the show also depicted his detective skills, something that the live action films gloss over for the most part.  The storylines in the animated series also can get pretty dark at times.  If I had to recommend a few episodes, I'd be hard pressed to pick from some of them.  The two-part episode where Harvey Dent becomes Two-Face is a really good one.  Then there's "Baby-Doll" which is also a really good but also pretty dark.  Then there's "Almost Got 'im" which is literally a series of stories between Joker, Two-Face, Penguin, Poison Ivy, and Killer Croc about the times they almost killed Batman...all while playing poker.  Then there's the episode "Perchance To Dream".  I really don't want to say too much about that one because it's worth seeing.  Same with the late in the series episode "Over the Edge".

But back on topic, when I took my sister to see it, I could sense that the tone of the movie and the danger to the characters changed for her once Khan's identity was revealed.  Just a little gasp told me that she knew this was bad f***ing news.  That's how well known Khan is.  She hasn't seen the original episode, and I'm not entirely sure she's seen The Wrath of Khan.  But everyone who knows anything about Trek knows about Klingons, Borg, and Khan.  So I really think getting Khan out of the way NOW was a good idea, otherwise that shadow would haunt them, even if they only did one more movie.

[Saquist]

That's a shame.  Burton's Batman IS the superior Batman.  He's dark, broody, and doesn't have to sound like he smoked 50 pounds of cigarettes to sound intimidating.  Don't get me wrong, I love the Nolan movies, but they're not the best representation of the Batman.  Technically, neither are the Burton movies.  Probably the BEST Batman period IS the animated series Batman.  That show not only portrayed him as a martial artist badass, the show also depicted his detective skills, something that the live action films gloss over for the most part.  The storylines in the animated series also can get pretty dark at times.  If I had to recommend a few episodes, I'd be hard pressed to pick from some of them.  The two-part episode where Harvey Dent becomes Two-Face is a really good one.  Then there's "Baby-Doll" which is also a really good but also pretty dark.  Then there's "Almost Got 'im" which is literally a series of stories between Joker, Two-Face, Penguin, Poison Ivy, and Killer Croc about the times they almost killed Batman...all while playing poker.  Then there's the episode "Perchance To Dream".  I really don't want to say too much about that one because it's worth seeing.  Same with the late in the series episode "Over the Edge".

But back on topic, when I took my sister to see it, I could sense that the tone of the movie and the danger to the characters changed for her once Khan's identity was revealed.  Just a little gasp told me that she knew this was bad f***ing news.  That's how well known Khan is.  She hasn't seen the original episode, and I'm not entirely sure she's seen The Wrath of Khan.  But everyone who knows anything about Trek knows about Klingons, Borg, and Khan.  So I really think getting Khan out of the way NOW was a good idea, otherwise that shadow would haunt them, even if they only did one more movie.

I know how the moderators love an on topic thread so I'll keep going wishing Batman's Character in media could be discussed more.

I don't know how old your Sister is but my Cousins are around 22 to 28 and they had no idea who Khan was.  Mostly they didn't see his significance nor did they have any perception of who he was.  To them it was like the first time and I find that the first time has a great amount of exhilaration than watching a reproduction.  It's like with me Watching another Spiderman Intro Story or Intro Story's of anything that's been done over and over again.

I like the introduction of Section 31, I thought that had some clever potential than just a cursory line of text.  Section 31 is one of the more interesting and controversial topics in Star Trek.  And if he wanted to really get involved with the whole debate of unsanctioned action on foreign soil this would have been a great place to start. 

[Nighthawk]

again.... M O V I E

can't speak for Batman, but I guess he falls in the category of "dark anti-hero" kind of hero.... he's not the "white-caped" hero as you would expect from captain america or superman, but rather the guy who's definitely gonna burn the barn down if he's to find the needle....

any movie that portrais that profile as good as possible, can be called "right" for the franchise.

so can you call "just about right" the new Star Trek franchise.... of course ST is about peaceful exploration, but it also teaches you to look at all the alternatives and be ready to use them if there's no other choice...
Sisko in "In the pale moonlight" (assasination of a romulan to turn the tides of war)? Picard in "Tapestry" (die rather than live without any recognition)? Kirk in Kobayashi Maru, anyone?
that scenario has been a part of the ST history for, like, 50 years now.... and when someone finally puts it to practical use (specifically, getting rid of the limitations of an establishment, and building his own way out), you trash him for doing that!

seriously, people.... what the hell...  

[Darkthunder]

Well put Nighthawk. Well put

[Shadowknight1]

I know how the moderators love an on topic thread so I'll keep going wishing Batman's Character in media could be discussed more.

I don't know how old your Sister is but my Cousins are around 22 to 28 and they had no idea who Khan was.  Mostly they didn't see his significance nor did they have any perception of who he was.  To them it was like the first time and I find that the first time has a great amount of exhilaration than watching a reproduction.  It's like with me Watching another Spiderman Intro Story or Intro Story's of anything that's been done over and over again.

I like the introduction of Section 31, I thought that had some clever potential than just a cursory line of text.  Section 31 is one of the more interesting and controversial topics in Star Trek.  And if he wanted to really get involved with the whole debate of unsanctioned action on foreign soil this would have been a great place to start. 

My sister turned 20 in April. :p  And as for Batman, check out those episodes of the animated series I mentioned.  They're worth a watch.

Well put Nighthawk. Well put

Indeed.

[Saquist]

Self sacrifice is far different than sacrificing others.  Most people couldn't do it.  Not if they knew for sure the outcome.
Picard already knew the out come when he actually chose and wasn't chosen for him.
Sisko actually chose to sacrifice someone else.  (That's traditionally called murder)
----
Yesterday 4 Fire Fighters lost their lives in a Houston Fire.   It's the worse loss of fire fighters lives in 180 years of Houston Texas.  While I know most don't share this perspective...Fire Fighters are the only paid Heros of our society as a class.  Most are UNDERPAID or not paid at all.  They put their lives on the line and their object isn't to bring justice or enforcement but to simply save property...saving your life is frosting on that cake.  Many people take it for granted.
----
The military especially as they are portrayed in Star Trek aren't Hero's they are saviors,  They bring weapons, they kill the "bad guys" and scoop up the civilians if they can.  They deliver the "justice" we want that law can't provide.  Sometimes Star Trek Characters are Heroes.  Saving the Earth from the Whale Probe or V'ger were acts of Heroism.  They could have destroyed them but everyone lived and coexisted for a true happy ending.

In reality most often we chose our happy ending over our enemy's happy ending.  
But that sort of Heroism helps to create terrorism because it also creates pain and tragedy.
Every culture on Earth can appreciate saving an enemy because it is the risk that can create the strongest peace.
----

That's what I did like of this film...is that Khan nor his people were sacrifice for the "greater good".

[Shadowknight1]

Found this great shot of the Enterprise from an upcoming issue of Cinefex.  If the past pattern proves true, we should get a huge, hi-res version of the render used for the cover, as that was done for the Star Trek 2009 cover(Enterprise in front of Saturn, seriously the render was 6412x6347).  Let's hope, cause this is a great shot.

[Nighthawk]

is that an Akyazi down there?  :eek

[Joshmaul]

is that an Akyazi down there?  :eek

Sure as hell looks like one to me.

[Shadowknight1]

is that an Akyazi down there?  :eek

Nah, I think it's that odd ship with the two nacelles above the half saucer and the two secondary hulls under the saucer.

[086gf]

^Obviously that.

[flarespire]

Just got back from seeing the film, MY GOD...

Im left completely MIND BLOWN by that, although when the Vengance went down, i couldn't help but think of the Enterprise D Saucer coming down on Veridian 3.