Get Some

General => General Chat => TV, Movies & Music => Topic started by: BerG on May 09, 2013, 10:42:26 pm

Title: Star Trek: Into Darkness
Post by: BerG on May 09, 2013, 10:42:26 pm
This was just ok for me.

I mean technically it was a good movie, just seemed to be missing something.

Had lots of Prometheus-ish things that pissed me off. What both movies lack is a whole lot of realism in the procedures area. ie, Prometheus, multi-trillion dollar expedition and they crew it with a bunch of useless fuckwits who hate each other.

In Star Trek, enter warp speed AS SOON AS THEY UNDOCK FROM THE SPACE STATION. I mean for fuck sake. How about:

a) Radio calls to the space station confirming cleared course and cleared for takeoff
b) Maintain some kind of sensible speed until engine is warmed up, systems are checked and you are a safe distance from the space station unless, you know, the FUCKING SHIP EXPLODES WHEN YOU HIT WARP DRIVE?
c) Radio call to space station confirming no inbound traffic and cleared to enter warp speed

This sort of shit really ruins the immersion for me and pulls me right out of the movie. You would never enter warp speed immediately after undocking the station. FUCK.

Why does the SHIP CAPTAIN ALWAYS GO DOWN ON THE HIGHLY DANGEROUS FOOT MISSIONS. WHY DOESN'T HE SEND A SQUAD OF MARINES. HES THE FUCKING CAPTAIN.

Why does Spock go into the volcano to detonate the cold fusion bomb? SEND A FUCKING PROBE, WE ALREADY HAVE THEM IN 2013. GOING INTO A VOLCANO IS ALWAYS, ALWAYS GOING TO BE INCREDIBLY DANGEROUS.

HOW DOES ENTERPRISE SUDDENLY GET INTO EARTH GRAVITY, LAST YOU TOLD US WE WERE 230,000 MILES AWAY WITH NO ENGINES.

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK.
Title: Star Trek: Into Darkness
Post by: PrinceTuiTeka on May 10, 2013, 04:04:39 pm
Simple explanation for the star trek flaws: JJ Abrams. When it comes to directors for movies it definitely should be horses for courses, and JJ is not the thoroughbred for this particular steeplechase.
Title: Star Trek: Into Darkness
Post by: deanox on May 10, 2013, 05:41:56 pm
Never liked Star trek!


and what?
Title: Star Trek: Into Darkness
Post by: kookynic on May 21, 2013, 10:33:26 am
Spock is meant to die, not Kirk. Movie is wrong.

Very pretty though
Title: Star Trek: Into Darkness
Post by: Kopfjaeger on May 21, 2013, 03:14:11 pm
Quite enjoyed it, got a kick from the tribble reincarnation
Title: Star Trek: Into Darkness
Post by: Apostrophe Spacemonkey on May 25, 2013, 06:36:05 pm
The Captain always goes down on away missions.

How else is Captain Kirk to meet the sexy alien ladies?
Title: Star Trek: Into Darkness
Post by: Xsannz on May 26, 2013, 09:31:47 am
http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/8714581/Star-Trek-fantasy-meets-engineering-reality

interestign article...  engine room of enterprise exists .... IRL.. sorta...
Title: Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
Post by: Apostrophe Spacemonkey on January 20, 2014, 10:50:23 am
a) Radio calls to the space station confirming cleared course and cleared for takeoff
b) Maintain some kind of sensible speed until engine is warmed up, systems are checked and you are a safe distance from the space station unless, you know, the FUCKING SHIP EXPLODES WHEN YOU HIT WARP DRIVE?
c) Radio call to space station confirming no inbound traffic and cleared to enter warp speed

What makes you think they didn't do all that?

They're always got people pushing button on the console, I guess any space traffic control is communicated with a central computer, thus it would be done using the console, not spoken vocally.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
Post by: Arseynimz on January 20, 2014, 04:03:15 pm
I thought it was awesome. But I watched from a cinematography perspective more than the story or intricacies.