Star Trek Into Darkness Official Synopsis Comments - Mania.com



COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

Showing items 21 - 30 of 96
<<  <  1 2 3 4 5 6 >  >>  
Higgy 11/27/2012 12:46:54 PM

LOL...I typed Spoke twice instead of Spock...ah it's been a long day.

almostunbiased 11/27/2012 12:48:29 PM

I have no clue what I just read and yet I'm excited anyway.

Miner49er 11/27/2012 12:50:38 PM

Sounds interesting, but it ain't Star Trek. Where's the exploration part of it? This sounds like a movie about Seal Team 6.

kentmid 11/27/2012 1:13:51 PM

I wonder if J.J. will ever be able to do a Star Trek movie where the entire fleet is NOT destroyed.  Damn, replacing all those ships has GOT to be expensive...........

monkeyfoot 11/27/2012 1:48:34 PM

I wonder if J.J. will ever be able to do a Star Trek movie where the entire fleet is NOT destroyed. Damn, replacing all those ships has GOT to be expensive...........

Well to quote Capt. Picard in ST:1st Contact

The economics of the future is somewhat different. You see, money doesn't exist in the 24th century.

wish 11/27/2012 1:48:56 PM

I do wish

I do wish that this movie will as awesome and statisfying for me as the first one was.  I didn't think there were any plot holes, I thought all the bullshit science fiction that they need to tell these stories was sufficiently explained and I felt that I could follow and understand all of it without feeling that it didnt' make sense.   What are you doing watching Star Trek if you have a hard time believing science fiction?  Don't you think that if they could explain all of that stuff easily, that we'd be way more advanced than we are?

Nobody bitches about lightsabres in Star Wars, even though having used plasma arc machines myself, I know that a power source of significant energy is required to generate that amperage, and that the light and heat emitted from such an arc would burn your eyes and skin off if you used it at arms length without shade 10-12 face protection and leather sleeves!  Yet we have no problem believing that Luke and Vader threw down with those and so did legions of Jedi before them!  Hand held phasers and laser blasters are in the same boat, both would require huge power sources and yet these dudes walk around with these things on thier hips!  

So, your "plot holes" can and do encompass the entire Star Trek universe if you want to get right down to it.  But you don't, you want to use it explain why you didn't like the latest incarnation of the franchise, which is fine I guess, just be prepared for dicks like me to argue it!  

karas1 11/27/2012 2:56:36 PM

Wish, I believe in lightsabers the same way I believe in transporters and phasers.  Abrams' ST film had more plot holes in it than the collander I use to strain my spagetti, and none of them had to do with the existence of advanced technology in the Trekverse.  They had to do with the behaviour of the characters who acted to forward the rediculous plot, not in any manner in which those characters would be likely to behave.

If you felt that everything was sufficiently explained then good for you.  I disagree.  I don't want to bore you, myself and everybody else by going over all of it again.  I'm sure you remember my complaints.  I didn't think the movie was awesome or satisfying.

lazarus 11/27/2012 2:57:27 PM

Monkeyfoot, to be fair, this is still the 23rd century, all we have to do is get Congress to raise taxes and we can buy as many ships as we need. :)

KyleRayner 11/27/2012 3:15:05 PM

I dont like the sound of it.

lazarus 11/27/2012 3:23:52 PM

Umm guys, 100 years ago some a$$hole wrote about huge metal ships that travelled under the ocean. It was considered absurd then also. That is why it is called  SCIENCE fiction. It is not possible. Yet.

<<  <  1 2 3 4 5 6 >  >>  

ADD A COMMENT

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Please click here to login.