Star Trek:Into Darkness

0 views
Skip to first unread message

dx...@albury.nospam.net.au

unread,
May 9, 2013, 2:56:12 AM5/9/13
to
S
P
O
I
L
E
R

S
P
A
C
E

S
P
O
I
L
E
R

S
P
A
C
E

Cross-posted to several Star Trek newsgroups

I know it's not what some might call "real" Trek, but anyway .....

I was one of the three people who went to the first session (10:30a.m.
3D) this morning at the local multiples, with no real expectations, but
was pleasantly surprised!!

Several references to the original Trek (Leonard Nimoy as Original
Spock, Khan and his band of supercharged Humans from 300 years ago, Dr
Carol Marcus, Tribbels, one of the leads dying in the Enterprise's
reactor room) but the storyline is, sort of, not dependant on any of
these, just they all help.

A couple of problems I noticed (I think) were:-

a. At one stage the Enterprise is loaded with 36 Photon Torps but when
the (semi-)bad guy asks Kirk how many photon Torps were loaded, Kirk
looks at Spook who answers 72, with a bit of a grin his face which, to
me, indicated he knew he was giving incorrect information. Although 72
is used in the rest of the film.

b. At one time, Kirk asks Scotty (who had resigned from Star Fleet
during this film) to check out what is located at location nn.nn.43.nn
but then actually checks location nn.nn.46.nn (I forget the actual
location but remember the third couplets are different).

A bit of unbelievability(1) in the film is that whilst Scotty is
checking out this location in a runabout, a fleet of runabouts shows up
to enter the base located there, so Scotty just flies his eunabout into
the fleet and enters the base!! How blind are these enemy pilots??

All-in-all, I enjoyed the film a great deal. Maybe the lack of anything
good, SF-wise, at the moment has made me more willing to accept lesser
quality, but I don't think so.

Go and see it for yourself, or wait for is to be on T.V. (or from
download) and make up your own mind.

Live long and prosper!!

Daniel

(1) O.K., I know using the term "unbelievability" when dealing with Trek
is unnecessary, but, you know what I mean, I'm sure!

MITO MINISTER

unread,
May 9, 2013, 4:35:42 AM5/9/13
to
On May 9, 3:56 pm, "Danie...@teranews.com" <d...@albury.nospam.net.au>
wrote:
Thank you. Live long and prosper!

Wiseguy

unread,
May 9, 2013, 11:18:49 AM5/9/13
to
"Dani...@teranews.com" <dx...@albury.nospam.net.au> wrote in
news:kMHit.1$09...@newsfe03.iad:
It references Leonard Nimoy?

> A couple of problems I noticed (I think) were:-
>
> a. At one stage the Enterprise is loaded with 36 Photon Torps but
> when the (semi-)bad guy asks Kirk how many photon Torps were loaded,
> Kirk looks at Spook who answers 72, with a bit of a grin his face
> which, to me, indicated he knew he was giving incorrect information.
> Although 72 is used in the rest of the film.
>
> b. At one time, Kirk asks Scotty (who had resigned from Star Fleet
> during this film) to check out what is located at location nn.nn.43.nn
> but then actually checks location nn.nn.46.nn (I forget the actual
> location but remember the third couplets are different).
>
> A bit of unbelievability(1) in the film is that whilst Scotty is
> checking out this location in a runabout, a fleet of runabouts shows
> up to enter the base located there, so Scotty just flies his eunabout
> into the fleet and enters the base!! How blind are these enemy
> pilots??
>
> All-in-all, I enjoyed the film a great deal. Maybe the lack of
> anything good, SF-wise, at the moment has made me more willing to
> accept lesser quality, but I don't think so.
>
> Go and see it for yourself, or wait for is to be on T.V. (or from
> download) and make up your own mind.
>
> Live long and prosper!!
>
> Daniel
>
> (1) O.K., I know using the term "unbelievability" when dealing with
> Trek is unnecessary, but, you know what I mean, I'm sure!

Proof-read, please.

A real Star Trek fan should know how to spell Spock and tribbles.

Jason O'Conal

unread,
May 12, 2013, 12:51:08 AM5/12/13
to
> I was one of the three people who went to the first session (10:30a.m.
> 3D) this morning at the local multiples, with no real expectations, but
> was pleasantly surprised!!

I didn't go to one of the first sessions, but I did go on the Thursday
it came out (3D also -- my first 3D film). I, too, was pleasantly
surprised.

> Several references to the original Trek (Leonard Nimoy as Original
> Spock, Khan and his band of supercharged Humans from 300 years ago, Dr
> Carol Marcus, Tribbels, one of the leads dying in the Enterprise's
> reactor room) but the storyline is, sort of, not dependant on any of
> these, just they all help.

I agree that the throwbacks to original Trek were nicely done, but I was
very disappointed that the 'death' scene didn't involve Kirk and Spock
saying "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the
one." (Yes, I know that phrase appeared earlier in the film, but I was
still disappointed.)

> A couple of problems I noticed (I think) were:-
>
> a. At one stage the Enterprise is loaded with 36 Photon Torps but when
> the (semi-)bad guy asks Kirk how many photon Torps were loaded, Kirk
> looks at Spook who answers 72, with a bit of a grin his face which, to
> me, indicated he knew he was giving incorrect information. Although 72
> is used in the rest of the film.

This really frustrated me also. I thought it was a milestone that Spock
was prepared to lie for the benefit of the mission. Given that Spock had
repeated "Vulcans cannot lie" throughout the film.

> b. At one time, Kirk asks Scotty (who had resigned from Star Fleet
> during this film) to check out what is located at location nn.nn.43.nn
> but then actually checks location nn.nn.46.nn (I forget the actual
> location but remember the third couplets are different).

Didn't notice this.

> A bit of unbelievability(1) in the film is that whilst Scotty is
> checking out this location in a runabout, a fleet of runabouts shows up
> to enter the base located there, so Scotty just flies his eunabout into
> the fleet and enters the base!! How blind are these enemy pilots??

Agreed. This was rather unrealistic. I can cope with other improbable
circumstances (e.g., why is it that enemy ships are destroyed so easily
while the /Enterprise/ can sustain serious damage and still survive) but
this seems to me just as poor story writing.

While I am not convinced it was necessary, I thought Khan's crushing of
people's skulls aptly portrayed his rage, sociopathy and superiority.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages