Star Trek Into Darkness named 'worst Star Trek film'

By Rappy
in The Media Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Mentor

Azies

Posted
Posted

No, they don't. In Into Darkness, Enterprise and Vengeance simply fell to Earth from the moon like there were no barriers in place. In space, things don't work like that. Orbital Mechanics are a set law in physics, and no amount of Star trek BS can explain that.

 

If that were the case, satellites wouldn't orbit, and come crashing back down each time we placed one up there. Neither would the moon. What SHOULD have happened is, the damaged Enterprise and Vengeance should have stayed put, with the gravitational influence of the moon pulling them along for the ride around Earth. Eventually, they would have either crashed into the moon, or the Earth, but they would NEVER have fallen straight in.  

 

That was a complete slap in the face to any scientist out there that enjoys Trek.

 

How about you chill out, because so is warp drive, and half of the other things in Star Trek, that's why it's called Science Fiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Dot Matrix

Posted
Posted

How about you chill out, because so is warp drive, and half of the other things in Star Trek, that's why it's called Science Fiction.

 

There's a fine line between good science fiction, and bad science fiction. STID was so far over that line, that "Sharknado" was jealous of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

techbeck

Posted
Posted

No, they don't. In Into Darkness, Enterprise and Vengeance simply fell to Earth from the moon like there were no barriers in place. In space, things don't work like that. Orbital Mechanics are a set law in physics, and no amount of Star trek BS can explain that.

 

Not sure if that was a spoiler, but some of us have not seen the movie yet.  And if you keep thinking logically whenever you watch a movie, you will find holes in most movie plots. It is a movie...use your imagination and enjoy it.  What a lot of movies are all about.  If you want true to life info, then steer clear of movies and watch documentaries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Dot Matrix

Posted
Posted

Not sure if that was a spoiler, but some of us have not seen the movie yet.  And if you keep thinking logically whenever you watch a movie, you will find holes in most movie plots. It is a movie...use your imagination and enjoy it.  What a lot of movies are all about.  If you want true to life info, then steer clear of movies and watch documentaries.

 

Battlestar Galactica disagrees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mentor

_dandy_

Posted
Posted

I don't object to there being any action in a Star Trek movie.  I just think the JJ Abrams Star Trek movies have more in common with Transformers than Star Trek.  In other words, it's entertaining for 2 hours, but it's ultimately mindless crap.

 

Roddenberry has people still discussing the points he was trying to make over 45 years ago.  What finer points are there to discuss from Into Darkness, which hasn't been out for 6 months??

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

techbeck

Posted
Posted

Battlestar Galactica disagrees.

 

Again, it is a movie.  Open your mind and imagination and enjoy it.  If you cannot, then dont watch movies like this.  There are a ton of movies that are just for entertainment.  Doesnt have to make sense for people to enjoy them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mentor

Azies

Posted
Posted

There's a fine line between good science fiction, and bad science fiction. STID was so far over that line, that "Sharknado" was jealous of it.

 

It's still a movie, it's not real life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Veteran

xWhiplash

Posted
Posted

There's a fine line between good science fiction, and bad science fiction. STID was so far over that line, that "Sharknado" was jealous of it.

 

Okay are you joking?  Saying Sharknado would be jealous of STID?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

theyarecomingforyou

Posted
Posted

There's a fine line between good science fiction, and bad science fiction. STID was so far over that line, that "Sharknado" was jealous of it.

Ah, for a moment I thought you were being serious.  :laugh:

 

I don't object to there being any action in a Star Trek movie.  I just think the JJ Abrams Star Trek movies have more in common with Transformers than Star Trek.  In other words, it's entertaining for 2 hours, but it's ultimately mindless crap.

Couldn't disagree more. Into Darkness was a movie for the fans and it shows. Most of this is just the inevitable backlash against something new and is something we saw with Star Trek (2009). The reality is that most people have seen the other Star Trek movies countless times over the years, while they'll have only seen Into Darkness the once. Heck, the movie isn't even out on Blu-ray yet. Once things have had time to settle we'll see a different response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

HawkMan

Posted
Posted

I don't object to there being any action in a Star Trek movie.  I just think the JJ Abrams Star Trek movies have more in common with Transformers than Star Trek.  In other words, it's entertaining for 2 hours, but it's ultimately mindless crap.

 

Roddenberry has people still discussing the points he was trying to make over 45 years ago.  What finer points are there to discuss from Into Darkness, which hasn't been out for 6 months??

 

Lets be realistic here for a second.

 

There's as much to discuss for as long about the new movies. it's just that TOS has fanatic fans who will discuss anything. the only reason there's anything to discuss about the old one is because the writers where all high, drunk and had no budget. 

 

If you're interested and want to, you could find as many fine points to discuss on the new ones as on the old ones. and people didn't discuss TOS until long after. 

 

Anyway, a lto of people haven't seen into darkness yet, including me so let's keep the spoilers away :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

adrynalyne

Posted
Posted

No, they don't. In Into Darkness, Enterprise and Vengeance simply fell to Earth from the moon like there were no barriers in place. In space, things don't work like that. Orbital Mechanics are a set law in physics, and no amount of Star trek BS can explain that.

 

If that were the case, satellites wouldn't orbit, and come crashing back down each time we placed one up there. Neither would the moon. What SHOULD have happened is, the damaged Enterprise and Vengeance should have stayed put, with the gravitational influence of the moon pulling them along for the ride around Earth. Eventually, they would have either crashed into the moon, or the Earth, but they would NEVER have fallen straight in.  

 

That was a complete slap in the face to any scientist out there that enjoys Trek.

But you are perfectly fine with sound in space?  If anything would insult a scientist, this would be it.

 

LOL.

 

Also, damaged satellites do lose/degrade orbit, it just takes a long time.  They must speed things up for a movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Veteran

Wakers

Posted
Posted

Hardcore trekkies only want the cheesy version based on the original cast.  Anything else is bad to them.

 

If you look at this list in reverse order, it's probably what casual trek fans / general sci fans would have come up with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Veteran

moloko

Posted
Posted

But you are perfectly fine with sound in space?  If anything would insult a scientist, this would be it.

 

LOL.

 

Also, damaged satellites do lose/degrade orbit, it just takes a long time.  They must speed things up for a movie.

 

The original series had sound in space too.  I agree that things need to be sped up in movies at times.  That just the nature of the beast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mentor

Som

Posted
Posted

I didn't see it, but my understanding is it made Star Trek into an action film. If that's accurate then I can understand why it ranked so low.

 

action is fine, the problem was it was dumb, really really really dumb, nothing got to do with star trek it was just a really dumb movie.  I actually laugh out loud in the cinema a few times...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Dot Matrix

Posted
Posted

Also, damaged satellites do lose/degrade orbit, it just takes a long time.

 

And I said that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing