Recommended Posts

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Hello, Installed here without issue. Regards, Aryeh Goretsky
    • Microsoft updates Visual Studio Code with easier language model discovery and in-app search by Paul Hill Microsoft has released Visual Studio Code 1.125, its latest weekly release. This week, the company has focused on discovering and installing extra language models via the Marketplace; searching the web and securely browsing over remote connections without leaving VS Code; choosing how long VS Code waits before installing extension updates; and delivering managed Copilot settings through existing device management tooling. In older versions of VS Code, extensions could contribute their own model providers, but to find these extensions, you needed the right tags to search for in the Extension view. Now, the Language Models editor gives you an Install Model Providers button that opens the Extensions view, which is filtered to extensions that contribute model providers, making it easier to find and install them. Once you install a provider, its model will appear in the model picker. If you use the integrated browser much, you can now look up information without leaving VS Code by typing a query into the integrated browser’s address bar. It will use your configured search engine, the same way a standalone browser does. You can use workbench.browser.searchEngine to pick a search engine. When the browser is opened in a remote workspace, it's now possible to proxy HTTP(S) traffic via the remote connection. This allows you to connect to any ports or services that can only be accessed from the remote machine. If you read our coverage from two weeks ago about VS Code 1.123, you might have seen that extension updates have a two-hour delay as a safety measure. In this update, Microsoft is giving you the ability to configure the time of the delay. You can find it under extensions.autoUpdateDelay. Finally, with this update, admins can deliver managed GitHub Copilot settings through native device management (MDM) channels on Windows and macOS, in addition to account-based enterprise settings files. Settings delivered via MDM appear as policy-enforced in VS Code and can’t be overridden locally. Future updates will extend the supported policy keys across Copilot surfaces. You can download the update from the Visual Studio Code website now.
    • "it opens up new doors for people who prefer using Edge, but cannot be bothered to configure a Microsoft account" You already have a Microsoft account if you are using Windows 11, because you can't set it up without one.
    • This is how much iPhone 18 Pro could cost after Apple's price hike confirmed by Hamid Ganji Image via Apple Apple CEO Tim Cook confirmed in a recent interview that the company may have to raise prices on some of its products due to the ongoing memory shortage. While he did not elaborate on the scale of the price hikes, new estimates suggest that Pro iPhone models could become significantly more expensive this fall. The Wall Street Journal and research firm TechInsights have come up with an educated estimate of how much the upcoming iPhone 18 Pro could cost after its launch in September. The estimate is based on current increases in memory and storage chip prices. For starters, the iPhone 18 Pro base model is expected to feature 12GB of RAM and 256GB of internal storage. According to TechInsights estimates, 12GB of DRAM for the iPhone 17 Pro cost Apple $39 last year. However, for the iPhone 18 Pro, the cost of the same amount of DRAM could soar to $145. Likewise, 256GB of flash storage that previously cost $13 could now cost around $51. Producing a base iPhone 17 Pro reportedly cost Apple around $582, but TechInsights estimates that the production cost of the iPhone 18 Pro could rise to $726. If Apple wants to maintain the roughly 47% profit margin it enjoys on the iPhone 17 Pro, the base price of the iPhone 18 Pro would need to reach $1,371. After standard pricing adjustments, customers could end up paying around $1,299 for the base model. However, that may not be the end of the story. As we previously reported, the iPhone 18 Pro is said to feature a variable-aperture lens, which could cost Apple at least 50% more than the current camera system. The estimated $1,299 price tag does not include the additional cost of this upgraded camera hardware. Once that expense is factored in, the base model could cost at least $1,399. A $1,399 price tag for the base iPhone 18 Pro would represent a significant increase over the current $1,099 starting price of the iPhone 17 Pro. If Apple wants to keep its upcoming iPhones competitive, it may need to accept lower profit margins.
    • Oh man, but what if I have the PS3 version?
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      With What earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Harris Gilbert earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Vincian earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      543
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      171
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      84
    4. 4
      ATLien_0
      64
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!