Scorbing Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 Just about everything. First of all, Benedict Cumberbatch is NOT Khan. VERY BAD choice in actors. Second, since when does the Earth suck in starships? Thirdly, why was the Enterprise hidden underwater when it could have been parked in geosynchronous orbit for line of sight transport? This movie just destroyed any sort of scientific belief, scientific canon, you name it. "The Final Frontier" or even "Nemesis" have more going for it than "Into Darkness" does. Dude you don't go to the movies to see reality. You go to the movies to see fantasy and the impossible. If you want to see reality, then watch the Discovery or History channel. Star Trek is called Science Fiction for one reason: It is all make-believe. Not real. This is a completely different and alternate universe. Understand that and maybe things will make sense to you, and just so you know, the Earth will "suck" a Starship or any object for that matter if its gets too close to its gravitacional pull area. The Enterprise had no engines, no power, so yes, it WILL fall down to Earth. Why did the Enterprise hide under water and not stay in orbit? Again, this is Sci-Fi dude, not the real world. Get over it. Cumberbatch did an excellent job as Khan. He was creepy, scary and violent. He did what he was supposed to do. Plain and simple. Personally, I wanted to see an epic space battle between the Enterprise and the other ship. Didn't happen on this one. Maybe next time we will see the Enterprise kick some ass, but the movie was not bad at all. This is NOT your grandmother's Star Trek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theyarecomingforyou Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 First of all, Benedict Cumberbatch is NOT Khan. VERY BAD choice in actors. Disagree. Second, since when does the Earth suck in starships? Ever heard of gravity? The ship was badly damaged. Thirdly, why was the Enterprise hidden underwater when it could have been parked in geosynchronous orbit for line of sight transport? That was obviously done for dramatic effect and it didn't make sense, I'll grant you that. This movie just destroyed any sort of scientific belief, scientific canon, you name it. "The Final Frontier" or even "Nemesis" have more going for it than "Into Darkness" does. Disagree. Into Darkness was easily one of the best Star Trek films, up there with the likes of The Wrath Of Khan, The Voyage Home and First Contact. It was incredibly faithful to established canon, while doing enough to distinguish itself. I for one am glad that it was successful?it's officially the highest grossing Star Trek movie to date?and am greatly looking forward to the third film. Into Darkness managed to successfully walk the line of appealing to a mainstream audience while delivering for fans. Praetor 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyang Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 Agreed with Dot Matrix on some things. The Enterprise was so far away from Earth that even losing all power wouldn't have caused it to be "sucked in" in the way that it was. Hand waving that away as "sci-fi" doesn't work because such things are inconsistent with existing rules set in that universe. Just call it like it is, and acknowledge that the Enterprise was pulled in for no other reason than to help set up the next plot point, which was that Kirk had to sacrifice himself. I thought Cumberbatch played Khan alright, even if the particular flavor of Khan was very different from the original. Also, pre-2009 Star Trek had its far share of "epic battles", so I'm not sure why some action in 2009-on Star Trek is being held as some kind of distinguishing trait. It's not the addition of action that sets post-2009 Star Trek apart. It's the greater subservience of science and logic for feeling and moments. That's why certain things like Spock taking a 3 second turbolift from the shuttlebay to the bridge in 2009-ST for pacing reasons,Tribbles basically having Human blood in ITD-ST for plot reasons, and Vulcan being so large in the sky wherever Spock-Prime was watching Vulcan be destroyed from, have to be taken at face value and just accepted for fans of pre-2009 Star Trek to enjoy the subsequent entries. I'm fine with these, but not because of some terrible reason like "dude it's sci-fi", but because I understand the different focus of these post-2009 Star Trek films. And I've been wondering: Why did Spock scream at Khan for Kirk's death when it was the Admiral that damaged the Enterprise so much Kirk had to sacrifice himself...? So far it looks like there's no reason other than either attempted fan-service, or because mainstream audiences would know about this, or both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dot Matrix Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 Disagree. Ever heard of gravity? The ship was badly damaged. That was obviously done for dramatic effect and it didn't make sense, I'll grant you that. Disagree. Into Darkness was easily one of the best Star Trek films, up there with the likes of The Wrath Of Khan, The Voyage Home and First Contact. It was incredibly faithful to established canon, while doing enough to distinguish itself. I for one am glad that it was successful?it's officially the highest grossing Star Trek movie to date?and am greatly looking forward to the third film. Into Darkness managed to successfully walk the line of appealing to a mainstream audience while delivering for fans. The Earth's gravity isn't that strong that it would just "suck" in the Enterprise like that. Orbital mechanics just don't work that way. At that distance, the Moon's gravity would have been the stronger force, however the E would have remained relatively stationary, and would have followed the moon around the Earth. I know science fiction calls for a slight suspension in beliefs (warp drive, for one), but breaking a law of the universe for dramatic effect is just all sorts of bad. Science fiction fans are a whole other breed. Many know there is a fine line in Sci-Fi story telling, and Abrams crossed it, unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dot Matrix Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 Here's a great video that explains why Enterprise and Vengeance would NEVER get "sucked" into the Earth like they did in the movie. Also happens to co-star 'Trek's' Wil Wheaton. http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/video-audio/1421-irastro026-Ask-an-Astronomy-Brain-Parasite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts