"STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013

[X]

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.

LOL the planet doesn't move, but the name does. Qo'nos was ruined in the Praxis incident, but there is a Qo'nos in the TNG era. There were some thing that happened there and a move was suggested a while back. Regardless of that, ENT puts the klingon home world at around 1 year away  give or take.

http://phoenixinn.iwarp.com/startrek/files/wranges.htm

If you factor in the Narada tech and advances, I'm betting that new trek uses the new scale. You can go from the klingon homeworld to earth in 10 minutes at warp 9 flat.

[Dangelus]

Ash yes I forgot about the Praxis incident. :-)

[KingIsaacLinksr]

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.

I seriously doubt anyone could actually see the Enterprise from low-earth orbit with their own eyes. Maybe if they had a telescope and MAYBE if they were looking in the right direction, they could see it. But as we saw in Star Trek: First Contact, it's really difficult to see the Enterprise E at night. Pretty sure the E is bigger than the original. And that aside, I'm pretty sure they could move the ship out of the way of the eruption.

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.

Here's the main reason none of this matters:

The volcano hadn't erupted yet.

And if it did erupt, then they can just, idk, BEAM them off the surface before it becomes a problem. It doesn't take a long time to beam someone off the surface and clearly this can be done when an entire planet is blowing up. If your transporters can't beam someone off the volcano is erupting yet can do it when the entire planet is going boom, then you've got a serious problem with your tech.

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

Well, if the movie bothered to explain itself, I wouldn't have this issue. But it's clear that they have no wish to explain anything and would rather you just went along for the ride. Aka: Lazy writing.

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.

Well, if we had any explanation of this, then I'd be fine. But as far as I can tell, we're still, apparently, using the same Warp drives. Apparently. Excusing the new visual changes and I'm still not sure what to make of that. If distances can be crossed so quickly, then that brings up a lot of questions/problems but I won't bother with that.

[KingIsaacLinksr]

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.

My enjoyment is based on the plot and overall feeling to the film. All this stuff I'm pointing out is fluff to me but its concerning that Hollywood feels the need to have all of these problems with films. The overall feeling was a ridiculously fast rollercoaster that never slowed down...and I'm getting tired of that pace. But it seems to be getting worse as more films come and the action has to be even faster. It's like the filmmakers have ADHD and are afraid that if we take even one breath, people won't go see the film. The plot itself is a mess with a villain that doesn't make much sense nor has a rhyme or reason to be there. He wasn't Khan. I never believed that he was Khan and as far as I could tell, he was just another British supervillain. I have less trouble believing Pine is Captain Kirk and he's a hard sell for me. From there, the entire film falls apart for me.

But then again, this just reinforces the notion that I need to turn my brain off whenever I go to see a film.

[Bryancd]

But then again, this just reinforces the notion that I need to turn my brain off whenever I go to see a film.

Really, so if I had my brain engaged and was able to follow the plot just fine, what does that say about me....or you? Seems like I am in the majority...

[KingIsaacLinksr]

But then again, this just reinforces the notion that I need to turn my brain off whenever I go to see a film.

Really, so if I had my brain engaged and was able to follow the plot just fine, what does that say about me....or you? Seems like I am in the majority...

It says that people get distracted by the visuals and characters, based off the Tomatometer. Idk what it says about you. For me, it says that I'm extremely analytical about movies.

[Bryancd]

Don't confuse analytical with pedantic....

The film's plot was relatively straight forward. The "plot holes" you point out are not a function of lazy writing, they are simply not key to advancing the story. Just because you don't respond well to something doesn't make it bad nor does the fact that you dislike something most people enjoy make you more analytical.

[ChrisMC]

Whatever happened to having fun nitpicking a Trek movie? It's what me and the boys always do, doesn't mean we don't love it. You always hurt the ones you love.

[X]

Okay, I guess I have to break things down for you a bit. The job of the story isn't to hold your hand and explain every step and action. You assume that the warp is the same, but nothing that has been shown is the same. From the visual effects to the way they appeared in the middle of a debris field in the first movie. They showed you that it wasn't the same, but you chose to ignore that because they didn't tell you it wasn't the same.

As for seeing the enterprise in orbit ... tell that anyone that has seen the ISS

http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/2009/03/18/how-to-see-the-international-space-station-with-your-naked-eyes-when-it-flies-over-your-house/

IT's about the size of a football field. The new enterprise is between 6 to 9 time bigger, so yeah, you can see it from space and pretty clearly if you can see the ISS.

I think that the plot holes that you seem to see are 100% based on assumptions that you made despite what was shown on screen or because they didn't hold the audience's hand and explain every single action, technology, and character. That's not a plot hole.

[Rico]

I liked it quite a bit.  I had fun.  I like the characters/actors.  Could I tear it apart and nitpick it easily - you betcha! 

[X]

Whatever happened to having fun nitpicking a Trek movie? It's what me and the boys always do, doesn't mean we don't love it. You always hurt the ones you love.

I don't mind nitpicking at all, but a nitpick based on an assumption is just an uninformed opinion. I guess I'm from a different group of fans. Instead of going "Oh they messed up on that" or "That couldn't work." I try to ask myself "how is that possible?" and "what would be needed to do that within the rules of the story?"

Or as my Daddy always told me. "Don't come to me with problems, come to me with solutions on how you want to deal with those problems."

[X]

I liked it quite a bit.  I had fun.  I like the characters/actors.  Could I tear it apart and nitpick it easily - you betcha! 

Tearing stuff apart is probably the easiest thing to do. I think it's a much better exercise when you try to fill in the gaps with stuff that makes sense.

[Rico]

I liked it quite a bit.  I had fun.  I like the characters/actors.  Could I tear it apart and nitpick it easily - you betcha! 

Tearing stuff apart is probably the easiest thing to do. I think it's a much better exercise when you try to fill in the gaps with stuff that makes sense.

Definitely.  Frankly, my biggest disappointment with the film was just that it borrowed quite a bit from Wrath of Khan (even if they did a good job with that).  But I still had a ball watching the movie anyway.  I just really want to see an original and new story idea for the next movie.

[ChrisMC]

I liked it quite a bit.  I had fun.  I like the characters/actors.  Could I tear it apart and nitpick it easily - you betcha! 

Tearing stuff apart is probably the easiest thing to do. I think it's a much better exercise when you try to fill in the gaps with stuff that makes sense.

Definitely.  Frankly, my biggest disappointment with the film was just that it borrowed quite a bit from Wrath of Khan (even if they did a good job with that).  But I still had a ball watching the movie anyway.  I just really want to see an original and new story idea for the next movie.

Agreed. I could give a crap about the rest of it not making sense, but I really want a brand new story, take us somewhere we REALLY don't expect...act 3 of Into Darkness was a bit by the numbers, didn't matter of course, my wife and I were laughing and whooping it up with the rest of the fans. I just want to be surprised by Trek, but maybe after watching hundreds of hours over and over that just isn't possible. We will still have pretty, fun movies to see.

[Bryancd]

Yeah, nitpicking can be fun. There is a great thread on the RPF nitpicking TWOK to show the Into Darkness nitpickers that it can be done for all the films. Where I take exception is where nitpicking becomes an overall indictment of the entire project as something to be dismissed and considered sub par. That I find arrogant and insulting and I will call anyone on it.