Star Trek: Into Darkness trailer and thoughts

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the trailer for "Star Trek: Into Darkness" and participants' thoughts on the film, its predecessor, and the broader implications for the Star Trek franchise. The scope includes personal opinions, emotional connections to the series, and critiques of narrative choices, as well as comparisons to previous iterations of Star Trek.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express excitement for the new film, citing the quality of the trailer and a positive view of the rebooted series.
  • Others criticize the first film for altering the original story significantly, arguing it cannot be considered a true reboot.
  • Several participants appreciate the character relationships in the reboot, comparing it to the ongoing James Bond series with different actors.
  • Some express disappointment with the destruction of Vulcan in the first film, viewing it as detrimental to the franchise's integrity.
  • Concerns are raised about the narrative coherence of the first film, with some stating that it made less sense upon reflection.
  • A few participants mention their long-standing attachment to the original series, which influences their views on the new films.
  • There are discussions about the balance between science fiction elements and narrative consistency, with some participants willing to overlook inconsistencies for emotional impact.
  • Some express skepticism about the new film based on their reactions to the first, while others remain committed to watching it regardless of their critiques.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally do not reach consensus, with multiple competing views on the quality and impact of the rebooted series, the narrative choices made in the films, and the emotional resonance of the franchise as a whole.

Contextual Notes

Participants express varying degrees of attachment to the original series, which influences their perceptions of the new films. There are unresolved discussions regarding the implications of narrative choices on the franchise's legacy.

Who May Find This Useful

Fans of the Star Trek franchise, individuals interested in film critiques, and those exploring the evolution of science fiction narratives may find this discussion relevant.

  • #31
OmCheeto said:
I'm really glad I don't know enough about modern culture to complain about who plays who in this new movie. So far, I've not recognized a single name.
You mean the actors? Wow. Chris Pine (Kirk) was relatively unknown before the first movie, but I certainly knew of Zachary Quinto and Simon Pegg. (You haven't seen any of the Pegg/Frost comedies?) I had at least heard the names Karl Urban and Zoë Saldana, but I'm not sure I knew who they were before. Benedict Cumberbatch has become a pretty big name recently, because of the success of Sherlock.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Fredrik said:
You mean the actors? Wow. Chris Pine (Kirk) was relatively unknown before the first movie, but I certainly knew of Zachary Quinto and Simon Pegg. (You haven't seen any of the Pegg/Frost comedies?) I had at least heard the names Karl Urban and Zoë Saldana, but I'm not sure I knew who they were before. Benedict Cumberbatch has become a pretty big name recently, because of the success of Sherlock.

I watch no TV, and the last movie I saw in the theatre, was, um, the last Star Trek movie... So, yes, I know the Pine and Quiznos characters, but the rest mentioned in this thread? um... shhhhhh... :blushing:
 
  • #33
dkotschessaa said:
And he's not dead! But perhaps you were kidding...
No - just clueless. I was sure he'd died (no idea why, now) so didn't bother checking. There's a lesson there somewhere...

dkotschessaa said:
Analog is awesome. I once posted here asking if anybody read it and got no replies, which I found confusing. You would think people here would be more into hard sci-fi than "Stargate" or something.
Hm. My problem with hard science fiction is that I can sometimes see where the author hasn't quite understood everything, and I find that much more grating than flat out silliness like Stargate. But done well, it's great. I'll check out Analog magazine when I've finished my current reading list.

Well off-topic now - better shut up.
 
  • #34
While it's true in my opinion that the older Star Trek had a better story...the Enterprise sort of looked like a child's toy. No offense to die-hard Star Trek fans.
 
  • #35
Julio R said:
While it's true in my opinion that the older Star Trek had a better story...the Enterprise sort of looked like a child's toy. No offense to die-hard Star Trek fans.

It looked more like a pizza cutter to me. :-p

Just saw it.

10 out of 10 stars. :!)

Classic Trek, from start to finish.

-------------------------
The only bad part was sitting through the 10 previews.
I think Ender's Game looks good. Elysium looks interesting. Everything else creeped me out. Except for that animated movie with the one eyed yellow tylenol shaped creatures. That looked like it will be fun. Btw, does anyone know if "The Hobbit" has been released yet? I really liked the LOTR series.
 
  • #36
The second movie was offensive to vulcanologists. The first one was offensive to people who study Vulcans.
 
  • #37
I'm seeing it tomorrow. Rewatched the first one last night. Sooooo excited :)
 
  • #38
I thought it was good. I saw it today :D
 
  • #39
Fredrik said:
... (You haven't seen any of the Pegg/Frost comedies?) ... Benedict Cumberbatch has become a pretty big name recently, because of the success of Sherlock.

Hot Fuzz continues to be one of my favorite movies to watch.

And Sherlock is brilliant.

On topic, I'm visiting my uncle this upcoming weekend, and he's a huge Star Trek fan, although I have no idea of his opinion on these newer movies. However, I'm sure we'll still go out to see that, and possibly Iron Man 3 (his kids, 6, and 3, know the names of pretty much all superheroes and always dress up as a Marvel character for Halloween. He's a pretty cool dad.).
 
  • #40
AnTiFreeze3 said:
...
On topic, I'm visiting my uncle this upcoming weekend, and he's a huge Star Trek fan, although I have no idea of his opinion on these newer movies. ...

If he's a fan, then he should like it. Even if he weren't a fan, he should like it.
I watched an interview last night, after watching the movie, and JJ mentioned a problem; "How does one make a movie, where people have had 47 years of Star Trek experience, and others, have had none."
STID.stars.2013.05.19.jpg


I think he did it.

I would provide a link to the above image, but it includes commentary, which might spoil things.

But I'll provide a pair of nasty little spoilers:

The highest score was provided by a pair of 50+ women? I can only surmise that it was "that" conversation during the movie, that made me spit on the bald headed man sitting in front of me. It was that funny.

Spock is gay. Or, at the very least, it explains how Sarek swooned Amanda into marrying an alien. Good god, Vulcans are freakin' smooth!

:-p
 
  • #41
ps. Hopefully, Greg is in the theater, and doesn't ban my silly butt. :blushing:
 
  • #42
Just got back from seeing it! Definitely lots of fun and some nice plot twists. It was fairly long, but it almost felt short. There was a lot they could have further developed.
 
  • #43
greg bernhardt said:
just got back from seeing it! Definitely lots of fun and some nice plot twists. It was fairly long, but it almost felt short. There was a lot they could have further developed.

Sequel !! :!)
 
  • #44
Saw it last night.

Way better than the first in the reboot series (probably because they didn't spend half the movie explaining why there's a reboot). I do want to share one complaint, though (I don't think it's a spoiler or anything, but I'll hide it anyway) that's been bugging me a lot.

I know Star Trek is not a bastion of realism, and I especially know that J.J. Abrams failed 3rd grade science when he did his science fair project on lens flare. That being said... losing power in your spaceship does not cause you to "fall out of orbit." In fact, the EXACT opposite is true. You're totally stuck there!

Oh, and what are the odds that, at warp, you'll accidentally come out 250,000 miles from your destination? At warp 1, that's like, 1.3 seconds away and Sulu had that warp-lever-thing pegged. It wasn't even really an inconvenience.

That being said, the re-imagining of Khan is pretty decent. I'm a solid Cumberbatch fan anyway, ever since Sherlock.
 
  • #45
Flex I took it that they weren't in orbit in the first place, rather in typical SF fashion they were hovering with antigravity or some such. Either way though you're right in pointing out that science isn't rigorous here, that's not typically a bad thing as long as it's entertaining but it can make it shallow.
 
  • #46
Ryan_m_b said:
Flex I took it that they weren't in orbit in the first place, rather in typical SF fashion they were hovering with antigravity or some such. Either way though you're right in pointing out that science isn't rigorous here, that's not typically a bad thing as long as it's entertaining but it can make it shallow.

I've recently had this discussion with a friend, and this is my only argument to "antigravity" (setting aside the physics of actual antigravity):

Assume they arrived about 500km from the surface of the moon. Add in the radius of the moon (~1700km), assume a mass of 7*10^22kg and solve for orbital velocity. I get about ~1.5km/s give or take a couple hundred m/s. Calculate the force of acceleration due to gravity at that distance and you get about 1m/s. After 25 minutes (25*60=1500) it doesn't make sense to point your antigrav stuff down... you should've been pointing it tangential and gone into orbit. I mean, it doesn't take more than 45 seconds to run through that calculation.

Furthermore, when they lost power... why are they falling towards Earth? Earth's pull is three orders of magnitude smaller at that distance. It's not even a competition! Moon wins!

It's as though they define the entire universe in terms of "some altitude above San Francisco."
 
  • #47
Yup it still doesn't make much sense. But if we start picking at the physics of soft science fiction the whole thing falls apart lol.
 
  • #48
FlexGunship said:
I've recently had this discussion with a friend, and this is my only argument to "antigravity" (setting aside the physics of actual antigravity):

Assume they arrived about 500km from the surface of the moon. Add in the radius of the moon (~1700km), assume a mass of 7*10^22kg and solve for orbital velocity. I get about ~1.5km/s give or take a couple hundred m/s. Calculate the force of acceleration due to gravity at that distance and you get about 1m/s. After 25 minutes (25*60=1500) it doesn't make sense to point your antigrav stuff down... you should've been pointing it tangential and gone into orbit. I mean, it doesn't take more than 45 seconds to run through that calculation.

Furthermore, when they lost power... why are they falling towards Earth? Earth's pull is three orders of magnitude smaller at that distance. It's not even a competition! Moon wins!

It's as though they define the entire universe in terms of "some altitude above San Francisco."

Pfft!

Can you imagine how boring that movie would have been sitting through 3 hours of; "Captain, it will now be only 1 more hour of drifting silently through space, until we reach the upper atmosphere, and start burning up!"

Just pretend, in the future, that they edited out the real physics empty time, where Kirk and the crew played charades, or pictionary, or are watching "Fast and Furious 893", or something.
 
  • #49
OmCheeto said:
Pfft!
Just pretend, in the future, that they edited out the real physics empty time, where Kirk and the crew played charades, or pictionary, or are watching "Fast and Furious 893", or something.

Ha! Priceless comment! :D
 
  • #50
Julio R said:
Ha! Priceless comment! :D

I was 16 once. Believe it or not.

-----------------------
You can see more, in the "Man Cave" section of PF called "Automotive" something or other.
 
  • #51
Oh, yeah, Saw it last weekend at the Regal RPX in 3D, that's Regal's version of IMAX.

I have a one word review for the movie (don't worry, it's not a spoiler):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajsNJtnUb7c
 
  • #52
Finally watched. My wife actually went along, because she likes sherlock/eggs benedict cumberbuns or whatever his name is.

I just had to shut off the voices in my head going "huh?" and go along with the ride and pretend it was something completely other than Star trek (Except when I had to explain stuff to my wife).

Then we watched Iron man III in the same theatre. I have the best wife ever.

-Dave K
 
  • #53
dkotschessaa said:
Finally watched. My wife actually went along, because she likes sherlock/eggs benedict cumberbuns or whatever his name is.

I just had to shut off the voices in my head going "huh?" and go along with the ride and pretend it was something completely other than Star trek (Except when I had to explain stuff to my wife).

Then we watched Iron man III in the same theatre. I have the best wife ever.

-Dave K

You do realize of course, that everyone at the forum, wants to kill you, and marry your wife.

 
  • #54
DiracPool said:
Oh, yeah, Saw it last weekend at the Regal RPX in 3D, that's Regal's version of IMAX.

I have a one word review for the movie (don't worry, it's not a spoiler):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajsNJtnUb7c

Noooooo!

I so want Shakespeare back...

Or, at least, that guy from "The Sound of Muzak"...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg58hVEY5Og

Cry Havoc! And, and let slip the dogs of war...

I think I'll watch it in 3D this weekend.
 
  • #55
OmCheeto said:
You do realize of course, that everyone at the forum, wants to kill you, and marry your wife.

Used to it.
 
  • #56
DiracPool said:
Oh, yeah, Saw it last weekend at the Regal RPX in 3D, that's Regal's version of IMAX.

I have a one word review for the movie (don't worry, it's not a spoiler):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajsNJtnUb7c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nV9jqtHbAK4

You decide...Once more, WITH PASSION!
 
  • #57
Okay, how many noticed this in the scene where Kirk meets with Admiral Marcus:

There is a line up of models on a table/counter. Starting with a Wright biplane working its way up through a Saturn V and space shuttle and beyond.
It included:
1. The Phoenix (Cochrane's warp ship from "First Contact")
2. The ship that is the second from the right in this shot from STTMP, which shows ships that were named "Enterprise".
3. The Enterprise (NX-01) from the series "Enterprise".
4. The Kelvin (Star Trek 2009)
5. The Enterprise (NCC-1701)
 
  • #58
Janus said:
Okay, how many noticed this in the scene where Kirk meets with Admiral Marcus:

There is a line up of models on a table/counter. Starting with a Wright biplane working its way up through a Saturn V and space shuttle and beyond.
It included:
1. The Phoenix (Cochrane's warp ship from "First Contact")
2. The ship that is the second from the right in this shot from STTMP, which shows ships that were named "Enterprise".
3. The Enterprise (NX-01) from the series "Enterprise".
4. The Kelvin (Star Trek 2009)
5. The Enterprise (NCC-1701)

dang nice spotting, Janus

I saw the lineup in passing but didnt make those connections

I enjoyed the movie, yup as did my wife also, she wasnt really into the original series or DS9
but next gen and voyager and the last ~ 4 movies she enjoyed.

I was interested to see the retake on Kirk's old nemesis, had to do some background explaining to my wife (cuz of her lack of the orig series knowledge)

Yup she also enjoys the Ironman series of movies

2 great movies, its nice to escape the harsh realities of life for an hour or so and get lost in some sci fi fantasy

Dave
 
  • #59
On a related note, giving DS9 another go today on Netflix...
 
  • #60
The beginning was good. It was funny, and had a nice trekkie feeling.

The ending was bad. Everybody's happy but McCoy and Scott are complaining about something and Kirk says "take us out there" (or something like that...). Isn't that getting little old? Or "archetypical"? (I'm not sure if I'm using a word correctly, but something like that...)

I guess Star Trek isn't Star Trek if McCoy and Scott aren't complaining about something, but IMO the writers should put some effort into not going too cheap.

In between the start and end, and among the complaining McCoy and Scott, was an ok action story. It dealt with the theme "fighting evil with evil" critically, so I wouldn't complain about the politics. Fits our time well.
 

Similar threads

Replies
40
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 89 ·
3
Replies
89
Views
25K
  • · Replies 102 ·
4
Replies
102
Views
22K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K