Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis and Poster Revealed

Discussion of the new run of Star Trek XI+ movies and any spinoffs

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis and Poster Revealed

Postby stitch626 » Sat Dec 08, 2012 8:13 pm

We know the SIF can handle acceleration from the engines. But every time we have seen a collision, the SIF cannot handle it. Even Voyager's gentle tounchdowns were not without bumps.
No trees were killed in transmission of this message. However, some electrons were mildly inconvenienced.
User avatar
stitch626
2 Star Admiral
2 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 9521
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 10:57 pm
Location: Romulus

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis and Poster Revealed

Postby Sonic Glitch » Sat Dec 08, 2012 9:16 pm

stitch626 wrote:We know the SIF can handle acceleration from the engines. But every time we have seen a collision, the SIF cannot handle it. Even Voyager's gentle tounchdowns were not without bumps.

Well is that the fault of the SIF or the inertial dampeners?
"All this has happened before --"
"But it doesn't have to happen again. Not if we make up our minds to change. Take a different path. Right here, right now."
User avatar
Sonic Glitch
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 5834
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 1:11 am
Location: Any ol' place here on Earth or in space. You pick the century and I'll pick the spot

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis and Poster Revealed

Postby stitch626 » Sat Dec 08, 2012 11:22 pm

Sonic Glitch wrote:
stitch626 wrote:We know the SIF can handle acceleration from the engines. But every time we have seen a collision, the SIF cannot handle it. Even Voyager's gentle tounchdowns were not without bumps.

Well is that the fault of the SIF or the inertial dampeners?

A bit of both.
Ship damage is the SIF, people inside damage is ID.

Fragile Galaxy warp core aside, ships don't handle collisions well (yet huge accelerations via propulsion are fine).
No trees were killed in transmission of this message. However, some electrons were mildly inconvenienced.
User avatar
stitch626
2 Star Admiral
2 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 9521
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 10:57 pm
Location: Romulus

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis and Poster Revealed

Postby Graham Kennedy » Sat Dec 08, 2012 11:26 pm

Exactly. Inertial Damper = not turning into strawberry jam when you accelerate, Structural Integrity = not snapping the ship in half when you accelerate.

Both work superbly well when dealing with strains from the ship's engines, and not so well when dealing with factors imposed from the outside. But surely there's wiggle room there for what we see in the trailer.

After all, the E-D saucer section took a planetary landfall including dragging over several km of ground, collisions with major rock formations and ramming into umpty-thousand trees, and there was virtually no major visible structural damage to the leading edge. There was plenty of internal damage, and presumably some to the underside, to justify the "unable to be salvaged" comment, but the basic structure of the hull appeared intact. Dragging around a ship around in the water a bit would be child's play compared to that, surely?
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8292
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis and Poster Revealed

Postby stitch626 » Sun Dec 09, 2012 12:09 am

The E-D slid along the ground. The E in the trailer is crashing through the water at about a 30-45 degree angle, making an enormous wave in the process. That is a significant (about 1000%) increase in collision area and force.
No trees were killed in transmission of this message. However, some electrons were mildly inconvenienced.
User avatar
stitch626
2 Star Admiral
2 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 9521
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 10:57 pm
Location: Romulus

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis and Poster Revealed

Postby Graham Kennedy » Sun Dec 09, 2012 1:08 am

The E-D slid along the ground, but it also slammed into - and through - at least one major rock formation at several hundred miles per hour, and countless rather sizeable trees. The Enterprise in the trailer is burying the nose of the saucer in the water as it skims along at what looks like fairly low speed. I wouldn't be at all confident that anybody could make a reasonable comparison of the forces, or that the latter is any greater than the former.
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8292
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis and Poster Revealed

Postby stitch626 » Sun Dec 09, 2012 2:04 am

That's fair. I guess I should wait until actually seeing the sequence, rather than a few seconds clip.


However, I'm still peeved at the last few seconds of the Japanese trailer.
No trees were killed in transmission of this message. However, some electrons were mildly inconvenienced.
User avatar
stitch626
2 Star Admiral
2 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 9521
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 10:57 pm
Location: Romulus

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis and Poster Revealed

Postby Graham Kennedy » Sun Dec 09, 2012 2:24 am

Well, I made a conscious decision with the last film. There was a LOT of talk about how it would probably suck because of this or that, and I decided I was going to give it the benefit of the doubt, and just go see what came of it. And it turned out pretty well! I figure he's earned himself a fair bit of credit and trust, so I'm going to go in with an open mind and see what he's come up with.
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8292
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis and Poster Revealed

Postby Jim » Mon Dec 10, 2012 2:33 pm

Gotta get to the 1701-A somehow...

I'd like to see an "Abrams" Miranda...
Ugh... do not thump the Book of G'Quan...
User avatar
Jim
Commander
Commander
 
Posts: 1469
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 1:32 pm
Location: Pittsburgh

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis and Poster Revealed

Postby Praeothmin » Mon Dec 10, 2012 2:44 pm

Just watched a trailer on Youtube and at one point, we did see the E-Alt come out of the water...
I must say, it was visually impressive... :)

And with the interactions Kirk had with the bad guy, I too now believe it is Gary Mitchell, or Abrams's version of Mitchell at least...
The truth always depends on which side of the fence you're standing... ;)
User avatar
Praeothmin
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 609
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 3:04 pm
Location: Quebec City

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis and Poster Revealed

Postby Teaos » Mon Dec 10, 2012 3:27 pm

Kirk... water... reboot... Humpback whales?!?!?!? We need Blackstar!
User avatar
Teaos
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 14671
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 3:00 am
Location: Behind you!

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis and Poster Revealed

Postby Jim » Mon Dec 10, 2012 5:13 pm

Praeothmin wrote:Just watched a trailer on Youtube and at one point, we did see the E-Alt come out of the water...
I must say, it was visually impressive... :)

And with the interactions Kirk had with the bad guy, I too now believe it is Gary Mitchell, or Abrams's version of Mitchell at least...


I didn'tthink that it was the E coming up out of the water. You can clearly see the nacells but it doesn't appear to be a "saucer section" more like a tube (facing away)...
Ugh... do not thump the Book of G'Quan...
User avatar
Jim
Commander
Commander
 
Posts: 1469
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 1:32 pm
Location: Pittsburgh

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis and Poster Revealed

Postby Captain Seafort » Mon Dec 10, 2012 5:26 pm

Jim wrote:I didn't think that it was the E coming up out of the water. You can clearly see the nacells but it doesn't appear to be a "saucer section" more like a tube (facing away)...


That was my initial reaction as well, but if you look very closely at a screencap of that scene, you can read NCC 17..., so it might be her.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.

Across the Universe - Chapter 2 now up
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 15019
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis and Poster Revealed

Postby Tsukiyumi » Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:01 pm

I didn't even need a screencap of that. It's pretty obvious.
There is only one way of avoiding the war – that is the overthrow of this society. However, as we are too weak for this task, the war is inevitable. -L. Trotsky, 1939
User avatar
Tsukiyumi
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 21704
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 1:38 pm
Location: Forward Torpedo Tube Twenty. Help!

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis and Poster Revealed

Postby Atekimogus » Tue Dec 11, 2012 9:55 am

Praeothmin wrote:And with the interactions Kirk had with the bad guy, I too now believe it is Gary Mitchell, or Abrams's version of Mitchell at least...



Well it's possible I suppose. It certainly sounded like the villain had a personal beef with Kirk which is why Khan wouldn't work for me in the reboot. They haven't even meet, how personal can it be?

Mitchel on the other hand would be easier to introduce as someone who has a grudge against earth, starfleet, Kirk.....altough we still need to see it, we didn't get to see exactly much of Kirks acadamy years except banging an orion and cheating on a test so....

(That is imho the main problem of introducing a villain who seems to have a personal agenda as well as an overall against one of the films heroes. It's very hard to make it believable that they have a personal vendetta when we virtually don't know anything about them and their prior interactions with the crew, something we were provided in the show. Actually if they use Mitchell, they could just as well could come up with a completely new one since a) how many people remember Mitchell and that he was a bad guy and b) what are the chances with a completely altered timeline that he still is a bad guy, heck he and Kirk probably never even met.

Hard to make "taking vengence" serious and believable when we are missing much of the back-story, so imho this is problematic in a sci-fi action adventure movie which probably won't be willing to spend much time telling this story (heck if it weren't for the comics we still would know virutally nothing about Neros motivations).
I'm Commander Shepard and this is my favorite store on the Citadel.
User avatar
Atekimogus
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander
 
Posts: 1001
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:10 pm
Location: Vienna

PreviousNext

Return to Abrams Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest