I f'in knew it!!
Star Trek: Into Darkness
- BridgeConsoleMasher
- Overlord
- Posts: 11679
- Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2018 6:18 am
Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
Khaless would rather die than live under Molor's tyranny.
Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
I don't think the creators of Star Trek (certainly when it comes to the reboot films) have thought about the mechanics of it much beyond 'it beams you up'.BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Fri Dec 28, 2018 7:59 pm I thought that transporters phase you into some sort of subspace, and it wasn't a matter of dematerialization and rematerialisation. Barclay's episode involved some being in the intermediate realm that required the crew to keep the transporter phase open so they could lock on to it. I thought that that intermediate phase was part of the explanation.
- BridgeConsoleMasher
- Overlord
- Posts: 11679
- Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2018 6:18 am
Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
I believe what I said was inconsequential to STID. Talks of transporters were in reference to the series.nebagram wrote: ↑Sat Dec 29, 2018 12:26 amI don't think the creators of Star Trek (certainly when it comes to the reboot films) have thought about the mechanics of it much beyond 'it beams you up'.BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Fri Dec 28, 2018 7:59 pm I thought that transporters phase you into some sort of subspace, and it wasn't a matter of dematerialization and rematerialisation. Barclay's episode involved some being in the intermediate realm that required the crew to keep the transporter phase open so they could lock on to it. I thought that that intermediate phase was part of the explanation.
Khaless would rather die than live under Molor's tyranny.
Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
I get that it's a different timeline, but the differences in Kirk are startling. First, there's the "ladies man" angle. In TOS, there were two types of Kirk women, for the most part. There were girls of the week who were typically seductions as a means to an end. Kirk was using his charm to get himself and crew out of danger. The others were actual loves. With the exception of Janice Lester, Kirk's past loves seem to hold him in high regard and still harbor romantic feelings. It was more a matter of conflicting career goals that led to his staying single. All the women he truly fell/falls in love with are strong, independent intelligent women. Outside of an incident at the "science lab Christmas party", there's actual very little evidence of promiscuity in his actual personal life.
It's also clear that his more reckless traits came later in life and was fairly straight laced in his academy days. Note his reporting of Ben Finney's mistake when he was an ensign. "Obsession" actually gives us the probable turning point. After failing to fire and seeing his captain and some of his crewmates killed, he became more a man to take the risk and action on himself rather than let others die in his place.
It's also clear that his more reckless traits came later in life and was fairly straight laced in his academy days. Note his reporting of Ben Finney's mistake when he was an ensign. "Obsession" actually gives us the probable turning point. After failing to fire and seeing his captain and some of his crewmates killed, he became more a man to take the risk and action on himself rather than let others die in his place.
Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
Okay, so, I suppose a lot of that tracks... Kirk as Bush is strange though. Does Orci think the CIA fooled Bush into thinking terrorists were responsible when in reality it was an inside job? I mean, what's the deal there? I'm guessing it's not a one to one comparisson, not completely. Wouldn't it make more sense if Marcus was Bush? Or at least Cheney?Section 31 is the CIA. Khan is Osama Bin Laden. Bin Laden used to work for the CIA. The 72 torpedoes are the 72 virgins Bin Laden expected to be rewarded with in the afterlife. The Klingons are the Middle East. Kirk isn't Captain Jock Beerpong, he's George W Bush. Cold fusion can't freeze a volcano.
For the record, I didn't much care for Darkness, not my thing in a Star Trek movie honestly. I liked Beyond more, a lot more. Generally I didn't like how the ending was wrapped up because it felt like really easily resolved, there's no moral dilema in letting Khan live. I didn't understand why he was here to begin with and it just wasn't Star Trek. Plus, I felt if anyone would own up to the consequences of breaking the prime directive it would be Kirk, he does that repeatedly in the OS. And this Kirk, who breaks the rules a lot, he shouldn't be concerned about admitting it. He should just shrug and say he did it and explain why he felt it was the right thing to do. Why lie?
Ah well, at least Beyond was better.
-
- Captain
- Posts: 859
- Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2018 12:04 pm
Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
72 torpedoes are from the episode Space Seed, where it was clearly stated that there were 72 survivors other than Khan of the Botany Bay ship (12 other pods had malfunctioned so, with Khan, there must have been 85 exiles total). It's not something made up for the film.
- BridgeConsoleMasher
- Overlord
- Posts: 11679
- Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2018 6:18 am
Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
I knew it!Jonathan101 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 29, 2018 9:06 am 72 torpedoes are from the episode Space Seed, where it was clearly stated that there were 72 survivors other than Khan of the Botany Bay ship (12 other pods had malfunctioned so, with Khan, there must have been 85 exiles total). It's not something made up for the film.
Khaless would rather die than live under Molor's tyranny.
- Durandal_1707
- Captain
- Posts: 805
- Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 1:24 am
Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
The 72 torpedoes are a sum of 42 and 30. 42, as we all know, is the meaning of life, symbolizing Khan's conviction that he is a superior form of life than most humans. 30 is the number of pieces of silver for which Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus, reflecting Khan's feelings of betrayal by Marcus.