Star Trek into Darkness - Most Face Palming moments

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the perceived scientific inaccuracies and implausible moments in the film "Star Trek Into Darkness." Participants share their thoughts on specific scenes that elicited disbelief, focusing on both technical and narrative elements. The conversation touches on themes of scientific realism in film, the expectations of audiences, and the balance between storytelling and accuracy.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses frustration over a scene where Kirk attempts to realign the Warp Core by drop kicking it, contrasting it with their own experience repairing sensitive electronic components.
  • Another participant finds the free-fall scene of the Enterprise to be nonsensical regarding gravity, which detracted from their enjoyment of the film.
  • A participant highlights the implausibility of Khan teleporting between solar systems and the implications of his blood having healing properties that can resurrect anyone, questioning the internal logic of the film.
  • Some participants argue that filmmakers prioritize storytelling over scientific accuracy, with one referencing James Cameron's response to Neil DeGrasse Tyson about inaccuracies in "Avatar."
  • Another participant suggests that while filmmakers may not aim for scientific realism, audiences enjoy pointing out inaccuracies in a light-hearted manner.
  • A nurse in the discussion raises concerns about medical inaccuracies in films, noting that such errors can be particularly bothersome for those in the medical field.
  • Some participants discuss the need for speculative science and technology in the film to be consistent and logical, citing examples from the film that break established rules.
  • One participant mentions that liberties taken in science fiction are expected, but they express disappointment when drama is created without regard for realism.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express disagreement on the extent to which scientific accuracy should be prioritized in films. While some acknowledge the need for creative liberties, others argue for a balance between storytelling and realism. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these inaccuracies on the overall enjoyment of the film.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the film's portrayal of technology and science often lacks consistency and realism, which can lead to confusion and frustration. There are also references to specific scenes that could have been portrayed with more attention to realism, but no consensus is reached on how this affects the film's value.

DHF
Messages
247
Reaction score
32
So My wife and I just got around to watching this last night and it was decent enough if you put your disbelief in cyrostasis but hey that's Strek Trek in general. That being said, and knowing there is no semblance of reality to the science, Of all the scenes that would have bothered me, it was the one where Kirk is the Warp Core trying to realign it...by drop kicking it. Yes the very precision engineered Matter/Antimatter reactor can be perfectly aligned by madly stomping on it. I suppose I took it a little personal as the day before I was at work trying to repair a CPU, one of the pins was bent and here I was with tweezers and a magnifying glass trying in realign the pin to no avail...then in walks this Jackaroo doing a Chuck Norris on the most sensitive component of an Anti Matter reactor.

Ok I am taking a deep breath now.

So that was the one that stuck out for me, At what point did your palm meet your face?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
American part, Russian part, isn't the same? They all made on Taiwan! :P
 
I guess the part that annoyed me the most is when the Enterprise is free-falling to Earth, and the gravity inside is completely messed up and makes absolutely no sense. It was so ridiculous that it actually took me right out of the movie.
 
*Sigh, where to start! Two in particular come to mind: the fact that Khan teleported from one solar system to another and the characters are like "strange but no biggie" despite the fact that revolutionises their whole fleet of ships. The second is the Khan's blood can be injected into people to heal even death. Er...what? I could go on but these cover the many problems with the film quite well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REOjxvQPQNQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6B22Uy7SBe4
 
As always, such nitpicking, completely valid though it is, totally misses the point that movie MAKERS not only don't care the least bit about scientific accuracy or internal logic, they have no reason to. This was probably best exemplified by Jame's Cameron's humorously sarcastic response to Neil Degrasse Tyson when Tyson complained that Cameron had gotten the sky wrong in Avatar. Carmeron said, Gee, Neil, last I heard the movie has grossed over a BILLION dollars worldwide. Just think how much it might have made if I had gotten the sky right.
 
phinds said:
As always, such nitpicking, completely valid though it is, totally misses the point that movie MAKERS not only don't care the least bit about scientific accuracy or internal logic, they have no reason to.

I don't think it misses the point, no one is disputing that this films make money, but there are examples of better fiction and by pointing out mistakes not only can we have an enjoyable conversation we can highlight mistakes that might make better work. That doesn't mean work that will make more money necessarily.
 
Oh, it terms of pointing out mistakes, such as are discussed in this thread, I'm a nitpicker par excellance, to the point where my kids tell me that they are annoyed that my having instilled in them a similar nitpickery sometimes makes them cringe at stuff they would have otherwise just glossed over, which sometimes lessens their enjoyment of the movies.

I agree w/ you that it would be nice if the movie makers would get it right AND make a compelling story but all of their focus is on the latter and none of us should expect that to change. It would be like expecting dogs not to pee on bushes.
 
"Cameron's humorously sarcastic response to Neil Degrasse Tyson when Tyson complained that Cameron had gotten the sky wrong in Avatar."

What was wrong with it?

"I guess the part that annoyed me the most is when the Enterprise is free-falling to Earth, and the gravity inside is completely messed up and makes absolutely no sense. "

Isnt it possible that it has entered the atmosphere, at it was because the air drag and turbulence?
 
I don't think anyone expects filmmakers to make perfectly scientifically realistic movies. JJ Abrams is not a scientist. I think some people just find it fun to look for inaccuracies, in a totally harmless and good-natured way. I doubt Neil DeGrasse Tyson really thinks Avatar was rendered unwatchable by the sky issue, he was probably just using it as an opportunity to hilight a fun science fact.

In answer to the original question, Khan's super-blood is THE WORST. It's not so much that it can bring back a dead person (we can do that too, with defibrillators), it's that it can bring back ANY dead person, who died from ANYTHING. I'm a nurse, so the medical errors are always what bug me. I literally can't watch any medical show on TV except reruns of Scrubs.

That being said, I'll tell you what's NOT wrong with Start Trek Into Darkness: Benedict freakin' Cumberbatch. #yesplease
 
  • #10
It's not scientific realism people are necessarily looking for. Rather what most people want is for the physics that we do know to operate in the same manner unless otherwise specified and that speculative science and technology be consistent. Star Trek does neither of these. An example of the former is how the enterprise, despite being near the moon, falls to Earth in minutes when it's engines fail. For the latter khans blood and the transwarp beam break a lot of the setting because now every disease ever is cured and there's little need for star ships when you can beam to planets.

That's pretty typical for the franchise as a whole. Every other episode in any of the series involves the crew inventing a miraculous technology whole cloth to fix a problem and despite the revolutionary implications of that technology it's never mentioned again nor is there ever a discussion of what else it could be used for.
 
  • #11
GTOM said:
"Cameron's humorously sarcastic response to Neil Degrasse Tyson when Tyson complained that Cameron had gotten the sky wrong in Avatar."

What was wrong with it?

You'd have to ask Tyson about that.
 
  • #12
GTOM said:
"Cameron's humorously sarcastic response to Neil Degrasse Tyson when Tyson complained that Cameron had gotten the sky wrong in Avatar."

What was wrong with it?

For starters it had rocks floating in it. As an aside GTOM please use the quote feature rathern than adding your own quote marks in future. It makes it much easier to track a conversation.
 
  • #13
For starters it had rocks floating in it.

Ok, that was a magic part, although that area had some kind of electromagnetic flux, if unobtanium is superconductor, couldn't that magnetic stuff repel the rocks from the ground somehow?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconductivity

A levitating magnet.
 
  • #14
No, I don't think Tyson was talking about the atmospheric things at all, he was talking about the star formations and whatever else was visible OUTSIDE the atmosphere. I'm guessing here but my thoughts seem more in line with the tenor of what I remember reading.
 
  • #15
Scientific nits are all well and good. we expect that liberties need to be taken especially with a space opera because sticking to any resemblance of science fact would effectively neuter the Star trek Franchise.

Problems I have are when drama is created with no thought to any realism even when its preventable. The reactor scene for example could have played out with Kirk actually trying to repair it in a realistic fashion or something resembling realism by using tools or concentrating or doing anything that looks like fixing an not just madly stomping on it. A co worker of mine "fixes" his slow computer by kicking and slapping it which only leas to it eventually winding up on my bench. and I would have to imagine the very center of a antimatter reactor is far more sensitive then a desktop computer.
 
Last edited:
  • #16
GTOM said:
"Cameron's humorously sarcastic response to Neil Degrasse Tyson when Tyson complained that Cameron had gotten the sky wrong in Avatar."

What was wrong with it?
It wasn't Avatar, but Titanic. And better let the man explain it himself:

http://youtu.be/YXh9RQCvxmg?t=35m12s
 

Similar threads

The Transporter in Star Trek vs. the Warlord Teleporter
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
7K
What are your thoughts on 'Ad Astra' and Will Smith's upcoming Gemini Man?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K