Star Trek Into Darkness Official Synopsis Comments -


Showing items 61 - 70 of 96
<<  <  4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >  >>  
SarcasticCaveman 11/28/2012 10:17:02 PM

 Yeah, Star Trek has never been about flashy special effects or explosions...what was the name of that episode of Next Generation where they're stuck in the time loop, and the Enterprise D was blown up on screen like 5 or 6 times?  

wish 11/29/2012 4:47:26 AM

haha or the fact that ST:TNG was one of the first television shows to have a multi-million per ep budget.  For what reason?  Oh yeah, those pesky flashy fx. 


How about this, all 7 of you can skip this one and the other 3 billion of us will go watch it.  You can have your lame-ass Trek back when it gets boring again.

Kaziklu 11/29/2012 5:16:32 AM

 Romulans were a super paranoid police state... did Soviet Russian Mining barges have enough weaponary to take down a WWI Destroyer? .. no not generally. 

Vulcans were a space fairing race, with Anti-Matter Cores... they have the ability just like the ship at the beginning to ram the ship... there is no reason what so ever for the federation ships to have not done the same thing as well. 

At the beginning of the film, it was established that the weapons on the Civilian mining ship were not strong enough to prevent a damaged federation ship from 20 years earlier, from ramming and detonating it's warp core. An Act that was able to cripple the Romulan ship. Yet Federation fleet was destroyed and was unable to do anything about it. The Vulcans having no ships around their planet, no shuttles, no hand gliders that could have attached a bomb.. is idiocy. It's a planet of people that are capable of defending them selves. They may be scientists but they aren't all scientists. Their Marriage ceremony involves a fight ot the death if you say I object. 

Spock is half human... he was also a Starfleet Officer.... any officer that says Jettison the guy on to the planet that may or may not have nasty critters, and is ice cold, where he may die before anyone can get to him, rather then putting him in the brig, because he is being insubordante, is going to have the crew question the order, and may refuse it, because it is over the top, and would be illegal... 

If a LT in the US Navy is traveling through the Antarctic with a Missile Cruiser, and he is well liked by the crew and he tries to undermine the Captian, the Captian is not going to order him to be given a parker and a insulated water bottle and left on an ice flow... Half human or not that is bat shit crazy, it was only done because of bad writting. 

In the orginal show bones was at least a Lt Cmdr. Doctors join and start as Lt in the navy usually. 
Sulu started the show as a Lt. Meaning he graduated the academy and served on other ships prior to the enterprise. Spock had served on the Enterprise at least 5 years prior to the start of the series. Checkov was an Ensign. Uhura also a Lt. 

The only major change to the time line with what happened to Kirk.. yet some how it caused the lives of all these people change drastically? Again bad writing and is not explained how one event that had no direct connection to their lives, caused them all to someone delay joining the academy until around the same time. 

The Kirk alteration one can understand, but every single other change makes no sense. 

Oh an of course Checkov should be about 15 around the time of the movie. Assuming he was about 20 at the beginning of the second season of Star Trek. And some how his genetics are changed, making him genius. 

Sadly Wish... you are fixing the plot holes but sitting and paying attention and then constructing bubbles to ignore basic logic and plot, to try to make it all fix. 

The Star Trek movie is as bad if not worse then Episode I. but it had bright lights, explosions, tattoos and bras, so it distracted people. 

Take out Jar Jar, and toss in some clevage and 3-5 minutes explosions every 15 minutes and people would have called it great. 

I'm sorry I think that if you can't come up with a logical purpose for the changes to characters, places, or provide a logcial on screen reasoning for these things then don't make the movie. Get a decent plot a good story.. and don't destory entire planets for no good reason. 

The entire movie was based and designed around the flashy effects. The Plot is literally secondary to and is there only to give a purpose for the next effect or action sequence. 

jackwagon 11/29/2012 5:43:38 AM


You're probably thinking of the episode Cause and Effect, which was one of the first episodes written by Brannon Braga for TNG.

On the subject of logic and reasoning in science fiction, I once read an article on Cracked that discussed the topic.  The author said audiences can suspend disbelief on almost anything, so long as the writing is consistent within itself.  A movie could feature unicorns flying around through space with roller skates on their feet, and as silly as that sounds, people will still watch it.  It only really dumbs itself down when said space unicorn is trapped in an airlock and could potentially be sucked out into space to kill it.  A movie couldn't do that because we'd already seen the unicorns flying around in space with no problem.

(Wow - I just re-read what I typed and boy do I sound like a looney toon)

The point is CONSISTENCY.  Is a movie consistent with its own logic and rules?  Terminator 2 laid out all the necessary exposition for what the T-1000 could do in a scene between John and the T-800, and the movie stuck to those rules the entire time.  The scene also adequately explained why the T-1000 didn't just try blowing John up by turning itself into a bomb, as most people would have probably asked that question.  Thus, we bought into the idea of a killing machine made out of liquid metal the rest of the way.

Star Trek isn't always consistent with itself, both in its science and its mythology.  More often than not, when the writers have put the characters into a corner, they use technobabble nonsense to resolve the situation.  This has always bothered me, because TOS and the first couple seasons of TNG didn't always rely on technobabble.  Time travel stories in particular almost never hold up to logic, which is why I wish Trek had abolished the concept a very long time ago (which is ironic, given we wouldn't have gotten Star Trek 2009 otherwise).  

I still enjoyed Star Trek 2009, despite its faulty logic and plot holes.  Admittedly, I loved it when I had first seen it, but the more I thought about its plot holes, the less I was able to enjoy the movie.  I still am excited for Star Trek Into Darkness, but I want to see a real story told that has some action in it (like what Kara had talked about) this time.

Muenster 11/29/2012 5:45:03 AM

-Sarcastic Caveman

You are incorrect about rank structure and the differences between naval and land forces ranks. You may want to read-up a little bit more about how one is awarded rank in the Army.

An Army Captain and a Naval Captain are separated by about 3 to 4 ranks, depending on any particular nation's armed forces. In the US Miltitary, officer rank ascends as follows:

Land  forces: 2nd Lt. - Lt. - Cpt. - Maj. - Lt. Col. - Col. - BG - MG - LG - GEN - GOA

Naval types: Ens - Lt. JG - Lt. - Lt. Com - Com - Cpt. - RAL - RAU - VA - ADM - FA

Also, in most western and some Asian militaries, highly specialized skilled people with certifications and expereince, like Doctors, Lawyers(certain types), Enigineers, Test Pilots, Scientists, etc... Are usually awarded the rank of Cpt.(land forces) or Lt.  upon successful completion of some type of military OCS.

BTW, an aquaintance of mine recently joined the US ARMY after being heavily recruited. Even though he is 45 years old, he has 15 years experience as neurosurgeon. After he completed OCS and Army MEDCOM training he was awarded the rank of Major.

karas1 11/29/2012 7:12:47 AM

jackwagon, I read that same article and agreed with it.

Caveman, Kirk wasn't even an Ensign in the movie.  He was a cadet who was about to be expelled for cheating on a test.  And while a battlefield promotion might stand up, they'd never leave him in command of a starship.

I never said I thought there shouldn't be FX in a ST movie.  I just want the movie to be more than JUST FX and fight scenes.

Kaziklu, the reason that Spock threw Kirk off the ship was a plot device so that Kirk could run into Old Spock and Scotty on the planet.  It was not something that the real Spock would EVER have done.  They couldn't think of a legimate reason for Kirk to go there (I could have and so could you I bet) so they made up this stupid fight between Kirk and Spock (which was also something the real Spock would never do).  It was really lazy writing and one of the reasons I think Abrams and co has great distain for their audience.

"Eh, just throw any old sh*t in there.  They're just scifi fans.  Nobody will notice or care."

The sad part is, they seem to have been right.  As long as there were pretty people in tight costumes and lots of cool FX most people didn't care.

wish 11/29/2012 11:30:51 AM

well forgive us for not being the intellectual giants that you guys are because we didn't grab a shovel to dig for plot holes and we happened to actually enjoy the movie.  Spock threw Kirk off the ship due to a combnation of events, he wasn't supposed to be there, meaning he shouldnt be on the bridge attempting a mutiny and it was a moment of extreme tension and confusion as they were just witness to the destruction of an entire planet and a threat they had never encountered had just wiped out a pile of ships!!  Kirk was left at an outpost, with a beacon and survival rations, he would have been retrieved by starfleet personal, that's a lot different than being marooned on an iceberg in one of Earth's oceans where we still have separate and warring nations! 

Kaz, after making it through your comment it occured to me how ironic it is that you would even comment on bad writing, so I don't have to argue much there.

Kara, lazy writing is everywhere if you hunt for it to validate your hate for something, and I sure wouldn't presume to say things that a fictional character would or wouldn't ever do, I doubt you had anything to do with either the inception of, or early writings of the character Spock so just because it's something you want to see or don't agree with, doesn't make it right or wrong.  The entire point here is that those of us who loved the movie can argue all day and come up with answers and explanations to all your guys' "plot holes"  but why bother knowing that in the end, your mind won't be changed and you'll likely just come up with more bullshit to further your arguement that the movie sucked and isn't true "Star Trek".   How many times have we gone down this road already?


I think pretty much every point you all make concerning "plot holes" and "logic" are wrong, you'll never convince me otherwise and you'll always come across as petty and whining because you didn't get your vision of ST.  Especially since you make it sound like JJ and crew went in with a "fuck the fans" mentality, that kind of paranoid thinking is conspiracy theorist territory and just not believable in any way.  They went in wanting to make the best ST they could, they knew it would involve radical changes and in my opinion (shared by many) they succeeded greatly!  I take back what I said earlier, I hope you never get the Trek you want and that you have to suffer through endless movies and tv series all built off of the JJ model, inspired by the 2009 reboot!!  Forever and ever!!!


lazarus 11/29/2012 11:56:16 AM

OKay on the Kirk issue and the ship.

Lets make some points you have overlooked.




Yeah it is a stretch and yes it was plot device to get Kirk to meet up with Future Spock. God how do you cynics enjoy ANYTHING without suspending a bit of disbelief?

Like I made the point in the TOS forum. The TOS movie would be actually very short. Zod being a military genius would begin killing innocents until Superman surrendered. So obviously we have to work around that.

Like it or not Trek is having to change with the times or will find itself mothballed again.

karas1 11/29/2012 2:53:47 PM

Wish, Abrams did go into it with a "fuck the fans" mentality.  He was quoted as saying that he never liked Star Trek so he was going to change it to make it more like what he would like. 

Abrams'  Star Trek was a fine movie if what you were looking for was an action film set in outer space.  I was looking for more than that.  And if that's all that Star Trek is to become, I'd rather it was mothballed instead of desecrated.

wish 11/29/2012 3:47:49 PM

Hang in there girl, who knows, without the time-travel element in this sequel perhaps we will all get a film we like.  Regardless of the previous events, they've got a great cast to portray these characters, I'm sure most could admit that at least.

<<  <  4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >  >>  


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