Star Trek: Into Darkness

[Kinky Vorlon]

Thank you, Chuck.

I saw this movie with someone and had I been alone, I would've walked out at the Khan reveal. And Spoke's blahn cry made me laugh out loud. I haven't seen the most recent "Trek" movie and I've no appetite too. JJA has succeeded where Braga failed: In killing Star Trek.

[clearspira]

The difference though is that Kirk didn't get a loving full body shot that hung on him for several seconds.

It's been a while since I watched it, but I seem to remember him being on screen in his undies for at least several seconds.

His underwear was an incidental part of the scene.

Riiiigght.... I'm sure Chris Pine being in his undies wasn't meant as fan service for anyone. You remind me of a reviewer who bitched about not being able to see dick in Riddick in exchange for some brief side-boob from Dahl, in spite of the fact we saw way more of Riddick than Dahl.

And was the camera staring at his undies? Actually physically focused on them? That's the point you are ignoring.
But, you're right. This is after all the same franchise that gave us a man in a padded catsuit... oh, no, wait... Seven was a woman...
What about that man in the catsuit with the split down the middle showing his pecs? Oh, no, wait... Troi was a woman...
What about those men with padded uniforms, Kira and Jadzia?... oh, no, wait...
What about that guy who started off as pixie-like and cute and then was put into a catsuit with a padded ass in his last season for no reason... oh, no, wait... Kes was a woman...
What about that whole crew who spent three seasons showing off their legs with splits down their chests showing their pecs... oh, no, wait... those weren't the male uniforms on TOS that were designed like that...
But what about ''Time and Again'' where Paris was the one with the padded costume to wear? Oh, no, wait... that was Janeway that was given a push-up bra to wear for no reason...
What about Tuvok's Pon Farr? The way they spent a whole episode on it with him in his skimpy underwear and panting... oh, no, wait... that was T'Pol.
What about that guy who was crawling through the air ducts to save the ship only to fall and lose his shirt on the way down... oh, no, wait... Hoshi is a woman.

Yeah. You've proven to me that women don't get a raw deal when it comes to being put in situations where we can leer at them. Good job.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

The difference though is that Kirk didn't get a loving full body shot that hung on him for several seconds.

It's been a while since I watched it, but I seem to remember him being on screen in his undies for at least several seconds.

His underwear was an incidental part of the scene.

Riiiigght.... I'm sure Chris Pine being in his undies wasn't meant as fan service for anyone. You remind me of a reviewer who bitched about not being able to see dick in Riddick in exchange for some brief side-boob from Dahl, in spite of the fact we saw way more of Riddick than Dahl.

Honestly do you equate the context of the two scenes?

[Nikas Zekeval]

The first film left me leery of number two. Into Darkness convinced me to not even bother with number three even on cable. The trailers didn’t help number three’s case.

The third one is much better than the first two. Different writers. Actually feels like Star Trek, and has a message that wouldn't be out of place in TNG. Makes good use of the ensemble cast, also.

To quote a Klingon proverb (from How Much forJust the Planet); “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, prepare for doom.”

What ever good will Abrams first “Trek” film left me with? STID took it all out and bounced enough checks I wanted to close the accounts. Space battles run on rock and roll? Motorcycle stunts from Kirk? Didn’t give me any faith in the third being any less a mess.

And I doubt I was the only one. You never get a second chance for a first impression. And this film left enough of a bad one to make seeing the third a huge lift. And the trailers were cut for the popcorn crowd, not fans who saw WoK in the theater and found this an insulting plagerizing of that.

[Mindworm]

1) In media res opening is fine, silly adventure is fine. But how (the fuck) and why (the fuck) is the Enterprise under the (fucking) ocean? In general, I'm fine with them violating the prime directive to save a civilization, but the entire PROBLEM is contrived by the Enterprise being a place it shouldn't be-they have fucking matter transporters.

1) is trailer bait

Every time I think about that scene it gets dumber and dumber. Somehow a starship that is never meant to land somehow flew through the atmosphere and got itself down underneath the ocean without anyone on the planet seeing it. The water displacement from dropping a massive starship in the water doesn't crate massive waves that might kill hundreds or thousands of innocents (or maybe it did and the writers and crew don't just care). They're also somehow launching shuttles while submerged without that flooding the shuttle bays. Or maybe they're just beaming the shuttles out of the Enterprise to above the water's surface?

It's all so stupid and provides no discernible advantage. You can have the Enterprise in orbit above that particular village, where even if line of sight is necessary for transporters (which it never has been before), you can get close enough. And they can stay at a range where primitive villagers will never see your ship with the naked eye. You can still launch shuttles from up there. And there's no reason your ENTIRE crew has to be on the planet.

And it's all there to set up a dilemma where Kirk has to choose between his "friend" (even though there's no real evidence that these two are friends) and the PD. As if they couldn't think of a creative way to establish that dilemma while the crew's actions are still somewhat reasonable.

The inevitable counter-argument is that people don't always act in the most logical manners so I shouldn't expect characters in a movie to always take the most logical actions-this is why characters in horror movies sometimes do stupid shit that gets them killed. But this was a HUGE contrivance where it's such an outlandish idea that inevitably took tons of planning and coordination between a ton of different people to get the Enterprise down under the water, and there's no evidence that it was even slightly necessary. A ton of effort went into a non-solution for a non-problem.

And I just wrote close to 400 words to point out all the problems with one specific plotpoint in the opening scene. There's so many issues with this film that nobody put a moment's thought into. These are the sorts of issues that wouldn't show up in a fucking fanfic.

I agree with you on everything bar the water swamping thing. Fact of the matter is the Enterprise would not have been big enough to cause much of a sea raise (given a similar makeup of the primitive planet vis a vis earth, i.e. similar size similar land sea ratio). You're looking at a ship displacing c. 5,000,000 metric tons (Memory Beta figure) or 47 fully laden Nimitzes (rounded to the nearest whole Nimitz). The combined oceans of Earth displace 1.4 quintillion metric tons (wikipedia for Earth's oceans) so the Enterprise (assuming that the planet is similar to Earth) would displace a fraction of 3.4798621428571428571428571428571e-12 of the planet's water. So the Enterprise would cause a wave of I'd say at most a few feet (and at that it would take coming up at a place similar to the Bay of Fundy off Nova Scotia).

Sorry for the nerdiness, but the idea was itching at me.

[bronnt]

I agree with you on everything bar the water swamping thing. Fact of the matter is the Enterprise would not have been big enough to cause much of a sea raise (given a similar makeup of the primitive planet vis a vis earth, i.e. similar size similar land sea ratio). You're looking at a ship displacing c. 5,000,000 metric tons (Memory Beta figure) or 47 fully laden Nimitzes (rounded to the nearest whole Nimitz). The combined oceans of Earth displace 1.4 quintillion metric tons (wikipedia for Earth's oceans) so the Enterprise (assuming that the planet is similar to Earth) would displace a fraction of 3.4798621428571428571428571428571e-12 of the planet's water. So the Enterprise would cause a wave of I'd say at most a few feet (and at that it would take coming up at a place similar to the Bay of Fundy off Nova Scotia).

Sorry for the nerdiness, but the idea was itching at me.

The force with which the Enterprise strikes the water and whatever propulsion they're using to navigate is part of my calculations. A 180-pound person (like myself) can gently slide into a swimming pool and the displacement is barely noticeable. I can also jump from a spring board, launch into a cannonball, and the force I exert on the water creates massive waves and a violent splash.

If the Enterprise approached at a glide pattern and gently slipped into the water, the displacement would be as small as you figure. I'm trying to imagine a way where they navigated under the water and didn't create a tsunami-type effect from the force of their ship impacting the water.

[MightyDavidson]

I agree with you on everything bar the water swamping thing. Fact of the matter is the Enterprise would not have been big enough to cause much of a sea raise (given a similar makeup of the primitive planet vis a vis earth, i.e. similar size similar land sea ratio). You're looking at a ship displacing c. 5,000,000 metric tons (Memory Beta figure) or 47 fully laden Nimitzes (rounded to the nearest whole Nimitz). The combined oceans of Earth displace 1.4 quintillion metric tons (wikipedia for Earth's oceans) so the Enterprise (assuming that the planet is similar to Earth) would displace a fraction of 3.4798621428571428571428571428571e-12 of the planet's water. So the Enterprise would cause a wave of I'd say at most a few feet (and at that it would take coming up at a place similar to the Bay of Fundy off Nova Scotia).

Sorry for the nerdiness, but the idea was itching at me.

The force with which the Enterprise strikes the water and whatever propulsion they're using to navigate is part of my calculations. A 180-pound person (like myself) can gently slide into a swimming pool and the displacement is barely noticeable. I can also jump from a spring board, launch into a cannonball, and the force I exert on the water creates massive waves and a violent splash.

If the Enterprise approached at a glide pattern and gently slipped into the water, the displacement would be as small as you figure. I'm trying to imagine a way where they navigated under the water and didn't create a tsunami-type effect from the force of their ship impacting the water.

By gently lowering the ship into the water, as you describe? I'm pretty sure navigators who are capable of plotting interstellar courses with pinpoint accuracy aided by an engineer who managed to create a matter transportation device capable of sending people and things across light years despite using substandard equipment are more then capable of gently lowering their ship into the water without causing a splash.

[bronnt]

By gently lowering the ship into the water, as you describe? I'm pretty sure navigators who are capable of plotting interstellar courses with pinpoint accuracy aided by an engineer who managed to create a matter transportation device capable of sending people and things across light years despite using substandard equipment are more then capable of gently lowering their ship into the water without causing a splash.

But how? The Enterprise is a big block of metal, not a glider. Anything you use to propel the ship is creating more force. If you think it's using thrusters, those thrusters are invariably pointing down, toward the water, to negate the effects of gravity, right? So there's a lot of force being exerted upon the actual surface of the water, which should result in large amounts of water being displaced.

Then again, it's probably possible that this lowering effect happened way out in the middle of the ocean, and not right next to a populated land mass, so the displacement effect is less likely to make waves that reach the land mass. But then they had to navigate underwater to get right next to the island...and I dont' get what benefit it actually produced, being under the water next to the island as opposed to being in the water in the middle of the ocean. Was the plan always for Kirk to jump off a cliff and swim down to the Enterprise? Why couldn't they transport him from literally anywhere they'd have parked the ship? Why couldn't the shuttles just transport him up....dear God this plan is so stupid beyond calculation.

[MerelyAFan]

The first film left me leery of number two. Into Darkness convinced me to not even bother with number three even on cable. The trailers didn’t help number three’s case.

The third one is much better than the first two. Different writers. Actually feels like Star Trek, and has a message that wouldn't be out of place in TNG. Makes good use of the ensemble cast, also.

To quote a Klingon proverb (from How Much forJust the Planet); “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, prepare for doom.”

What ever good will Abrams first “Trek” film left me with? STID took it all out and bounced enough checks I wanted to close the accounts. Space battles run on rock and roll? Motorcycle stunts from Kirk? Didn’t give me any faith in the third being any less a mess.

And I doubt I was the only one. You never get a second chance for a first impression. And this film left enough of a bad one to make seeing the third a huge lift. And the trailers did were cut for the popcorn crowd, not fans who saw WoK in the theater and found this an insulting plagerizing of that.

This is all speculation on my part, but that might have been one of the biggest repercussions of STID. The film made a lot of money, but whatever momentum it had was lost in the three year gap between sequels, and in the interim the mass movie audience found films/series that could do the bang zoom action and funny moments better and more memorably.

And in an event like that, the only way the film could buoyed from disappointing box office returns was by a Trek audience that was excited to see it. But Into Darkness' flaws in combination with Beyond's marketing telling the hardcores it was more of what they got in the first two, led to its underwelming performance, and possibly even the Kelvinverse's now current status in production limbo.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

The first film left me leery of number two. Into Darkness convinced me to not even bother with number three even on cable. The trailers didn’t help number three’s case.

The third one is much better than the first two. Different writers. Actually feels like Star Trek, and has a message that wouldn't be out of place in TNG. Makes good use of the ensemble cast, also.

To quote a Klingon proverb (from How Much forJust the Planet); “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, prepare for doom.”

What ever good will Abrams first “Trek” film left me with? STID took it all out and bounced enough checks I wanted to close the accounts. Space battles run on rock and roll? Motorcycle stunts from Kirk? Didn’t give me any faith in the third being any less a mess.

And I doubt I was the only one. You never get a second chance for a first impression. And this film left enough of a bad one to make seeing the third a huge lift. And the trailers did were cut for the popcorn crowd, not fans who saw WoK in the theater and found this an insulting plagerizing of that.

This is all speculation on my part, but that might have been one of the biggest repercussions of STID. The film made a lot of money, but whatever momentum it had was lost in the three year gap between sequels, and in the interim the mass movie audience found films/series that could do the bang zoom action and funny moments better and more memorably.

And in an event like that, the only way the film could buoyed from disappointing box office returns was by a Trek audience that was excited to see it. But Into Darkness' flaws in combination with Beyond's marketing telling the hardcores suggesting it was more of what they got in the first two, led to its underwelming performance, and possibly even the Kelvinverse's now current status in production limbo.

3 years isn't some exhaustive time between franchise installments though. It's true that the Marvel brand has amounted to 3 movies a year, but they are separate franchises. All and all I think you're kinda right though considering Pine and Hemsworth are trying to get more money out of these projects supposedly due to the demand for them in comic book movies.

The MCU is just exponentially bigger.