"STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013

[Ktrek]

Am I the only one who feels Gene is overly deified? Just a thought.

I think Roddenberry is given a little more credit than he deserves. Mostly because his ideas were not really original as he incorporated (stole?) ideas directly from classic sci-fi books and pulp magazines of the 40s, 50s and 60s into his show. Most of the best ideas in Star Trek had already been explored in these old sci-fi and pulps long before Gene ever dreamed of Star Trek as a TV show. You would think he came up with all the sci-fi elements himself and he did not. Also, if he had not had the team he did Star Trek would never had been as good as it turned out to be. He gets all the credit but it is the people he surrounded himself with that should really get the credit in my opinion.

Kevin

[ChrisMC]

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/62867

Article on the Science of Into Darkness, which pretty much covers my nitpicks about the movie, which is the way the Science of Trek is represented.

[Bromptonboy]

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/62867

Article on the Science of Into Darkness, which pretty much covers my nitpicks about the movie, which is the way the Science of Trek is represented.

Hah!  Funny curmudgeonly review.  :)

[KingIsaacLinksr]

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/62867

Article on the Science of Into Darkness, which pretty much covers my nitpicks about the movie, which is the way the Science of Trek is represented.

Yeah, glad he took the Enterprise being under water to pieces. There was absolutely no reason for that scene and I rolled my eyes at it. There is no way that the structure of the Enterprise would have held up to being underwater.

[Bryancd]

Yeah, glad he took the Enterprise being under water to pieces. There was absolutely no reason for that scene and I rolled my eyes at it. There is no way that the structure of the Enterprise would have held up to being underwater.

Not really and no it wouldn't. He said the ship wasn't designed to go under water and pointed out theoretical devices which might not work, but he also allowed:
"I'm just giving them the fact that the force fields that provide structural integrity when the ship experiences extreme accelerations can save them from the underwater pressure."
And they weren't at the bottom of an ocean, they were in a shallow bay.

You need to keep in mind out concept of space ship, be it shuttle, Soyuz capsule, Dragon module, ISS, is a massive compromise of weight vs. structural integrity. We have to make things tough but super light due to the fact that lifting an object into orbit is the most cost prohibitive part of the process. The ISS has alarmingly thin walls but because it doesn't experience stress of gravity, they can get away with it. I have always been under the impression that Starfleet ships are made of much sterner stuff. Even without the assistance of structural integrity fields to make them tougher they can survive unshielded phaser and photon torpedo hits without blowing to a million pieces, at least at first. I think people are seriously underestimating how strong the hulls of these ships are and the weight and resistance of a fluid wouldn't crush them.

[KingIsaacLinksr]

Yeah, glad he took the Enterprise being under water to pieces. There was absolutely no reason for that scene and I rolled my eyes at it. There is no way that the structure of the Enterprise would have held up to being underwater.

Not really and no it wouldn't. He said the ship wasn't designed to go under water and pointed out theoretical devices which might not work, but he also allowed:
"I'm just giving them the fact that the force fields that provide structural integrity when the ship experiences extreme accelerations can save them from the underwater pressure."
And they weren't at the bottom of an ocean, they were in a shallow bay.

You need to keep in mind out concept of space ship, be it shuttle, Soyuz capsule, Dragon module, ISS, is a massive compromise of weight vs. structural integrity. We have to make things tough but super light due to the fact that lifting an object into orbit is the most cost prohibitive part of the process. The ISS has alarmingly thin walls but because it doesn't experience stress of gravity, they can get away with it. I have always been under the impression that Starfleet ships are made of much sterner stuff. Even without the assistance of structural integrity fields to make them tougher they can survive unshielded phaser and photon torpedo hits without blowing to a million pieces, at least at first. I think people are seriously underestimating how strong the hulls of these ships are and the weight and resistance of a fluid wouldn't crush them.

But it wasn't designed with the ocean in mind. I'm a bit skeptical that the joints holding the nacelles could have held up under the stress. That's still a ton of water being put on a ship that is designed for outer space.

Let's assume that it can due to the force fields. Even then, what was the point of being underwater in the first place? How did they get there without the natives noticing in the first place? Why would you do it if you were going to lose your ability to beam people up and down from the surface? None of this makes any sense. Here's a question as well. How in the heck were they planning on getting out of there without the natives noticing? It's stuff like this that has pretty much ruined this movie for me. So many plot holes that I could fly the Enterprise through them.

And this is a movie that took years and years to get done.

[ChrisMC]

I gave then the water thing, didn't bug me. It's the representation of Warp Speed ( takes as long as it takes Carol Marcus to run from sickbay to the bridge to get from Kronos to Earth) and the Transwarp beaming which basically can turn the Federation into the Iconians. These are the same things that bugged me about the last film so I guess it's the way they want this universe to be.

[KingIsaacLinksr]

I gave then the water thing, didn't bug me. It's the representation of Warp Speed ( takes as long as it takes Carol Marcus to run from sickbay to the bridge to get from Kronos to Earth) and the Transwarp beaming which basically can turn the Federation into the Iconians. These are the same things that bugged me about the last film so I guess it's the way they want this universe to be.

Oh yeah, that Kronos to Earth thing really bothers me as well.

[Bryancd]

But it wasn't designed with the ocean in mind. I'm a bit skeptical that the joints holding the nacelles could have held up under the stress. That's still a ton of water being put on a ship that is designed for outer space.

Let's assume that it can due to the force fields. Even then, what was the point of being underwater in the first place? How did they get there without the natives noticing in the first place? Why would you do it if you were going to lose your ability to beam people up and down from the surface? None of this makes any sense. Here's a question as well. How in the heck were they planning on getting out of there without the natives noticing? It's stuff like this that has pretty much ruined this movie for me. So many plot holes that I could fly the Enterprise through them.

What "tons of water? It was a few hendred feet down at the most and lifted out pretty slowly, there is no reason to think the nacelles would just snap off or the joints (?) couldn't handle it. As to the "why" they were there, I just think it was a neat conceit. Trnasporters can't work underwater? Says who, Gene Roddenberry's ghost? This is all made up crap, new flash.

In regards to this "taking you out of the movie" and "ruining it" for you, I can't help you there, I felt none of that. I am not so pedantic in my enjoyment of the film.

[X]

First off, anyone that says a ship can't go underwater knows nothing about the pressures of a gas giant. Numerous trek ships have been in gas giants and many have been underwater. Let's just ignore that and look at one small thing.

The new enterprise survived the pressures of a black hole. Black hole trumps water any day of the week. I don't see how that's a plot hole.

[X]

But it wasn't designed with the ocean in mind. I'm a bit skeptical that the joints holding the nacelles could have held up under the stress. That's still a ton of water being put on a ship that is designed for outer space.

We have absolutely zero idea what the Enterprise was designed for. All we know for sure is that it's tough enough to enter orbit and can survive near the edge of a blackhole. It could be made Ford tough to land on higher pressure worlds.

[Praxis]

But it wasn't designed with the ocean in mind. I'm a bit skeptical that the joints holding the nacelles could have held up under the stress. That's still a ton of water being put on a ship that is designed for outer space.

We have absolutely zero idea what the Enterprise was designed for. All we know for sure is that it's tough enough to enter orbit and can survive near the edge of a blackhole. It could be made Ford tough to land on higher pressure worlds.

Truth! :)

[Bryancd]

Yes, thank you Chris!

[X]

Now, let me address why under water.

As those of you that have lived on Earth in the last decade or so, you will recall that a small volcano erupted and when it did, it hampered flight over a good swath of the Atlantic.

Let's assume that this mega eruption is like the known mega eruptions in our own solar system. This could create a ejection that reaches past the lower atmosphere. If all  else fails, you don't want to be in the area when it happens, not because your ship can't take it, but when things erupt, people tend to look up and not down. Why risk being seen above when you can hide where they are not looking.

Let's continue that thought. Even if you don't get full eruption, you have a lot of particles in the air that can reflect and scatter the transporter beam. By having your support crew in a location where volcanic soot will not pose a problem and by using a ship with better and larger engines, you can ignore the issues with the soot.

It's not a plot hole if you don't understand why something is happening. It's just something that you don't understand.

There are probably a dozen of reason as to why they did it that way, but at the end of the day, they really don't need to draw us a map or need to explain the ins and outs of every command decision.

I do enjoy how they write of the article brought up the warp factors and distance of Kronos, but he forgot two major things.

1) Kronos has been moved in the past, so we really don't know where this planet is in this universe.

2) This is not your father's warp drive. Everything we've seen seems to point at more Star wars like travel or even wormhole based warp. The funny part about that whole science rant is that as far as we know, the wormhole like warp is far more scientifically sound than the folded space bubble of traditional warp. That being said, the distance between the points would not be a factor in the new warp if it is indeed wormhole based. The amount of time it would take to travel between points would be solely based on the construction of the wormhole, which would also explain the new warp effects and the momentum issues seen onscreen.

[Dangelus]

Who moved Kronos?! Lol

I can accept anything in terms of a reboot etc but when you tie your new universe to the old then certain things can't be changed do easily such add the location of a celestial body.

Yeah I hate the new way warp drive works. One of the most recognisable technologies of the franchise totally changed because it looks"cool". The same reason the ship was submerged, an excuse for a cool effect.