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 Nutso » Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:24 pm

Atekimogus wrote:Interesting...I got the link from an article on imdb.com....which is also no longer there, lol, I guess it's not supposed to be out yet.

Well you haven't missed much, there isn't anything "new" really, just more half second action cuts from the movie giving nothing away storywise with ominous narration and lot's of punching.

Like a Batman trailer?
"Bible, Wrath of Khan, what's the difference?"
Stan - South Park
User avatar
Nutso
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 3838
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 8:58 pm

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis and Poster Revealed

Postby LaughingCheese » Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:34 am

Well....the extended preview in Imax version of The Hobbit, that will clear up a lot of things about the water scene.

Since spoilers aren't working I won't post it yet..

Someone was asking about Abramsverse Miranda, I don't know if this is considered a Miranda class vessel (its called the Mayflower) but it looks almost exactly like it:

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/scans/trekxi1.htm

(Scroll down to "Other Federation Ships" as the site doesn't allow hotlinking.)

Also, howdy and long time no see. :P
User avatar
LaughingCheese
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander
 
Posts: 957
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 6:57 am

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis and Poster Revealed

Postby Jim » Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:31 pm

That was me. Thanks for the link to the pictures.

I like the Abrams E better than the original E, but I like the original Miranda better than the Mayflower. The angular rear section of the disk on te original gives it character. THe Mayflower just seems to lack something.
Ugh... do not thump the Book of G'Quan...
User avatar
Jim
Commander
Commander
 
Posts: 1507
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 1:32 pm
Location: Pittsburgh

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis and Poster Revealed

Postby LaughingCheese » Wed Dec 19, 2012 6:56 pm

Jim wrote:That was me. Thanks for the link to the pictures.

I like the Abrams E better than the original E, but I like the original Miranda better than the Mayflower. The angular rear section of the disk on te original gives it character. THe Mayflower just seems to lack something.



I think the look of the new Abrams ships is more industrial, I mean the pre Enterprise ships like the Kelvin and the one I linked. I would like to see the Enterprise look more like that.

I disliked the new E as well but its grown on me a little (actually I never cared for the original look, too plain, I much like the refit Constitution), altho I still think the warp nacelles have too many organic shapes. And what's with all the blue??

I can't stand the interiors tho, too flippin shiny. You'd need to wear sun glasses to go anywhere! :P

At least the hull is a nice color, not the plain white like in TOS.




Also, is the E still Constitution class? Memory alpha assumes it is but it was never mentioned in the movie.
User avatar
LaughingCheese
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander
 
Posts: 957
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 6:57 am

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis and Poster Revealed

Postby Teaos » Wed Dec 19, 2012 7:00 pm

They dont give most trek ships class names, what we call them is mostly fanon based on the first ship we see of that class.

By that logic it is a Enterprise class.
User avatar
Teaos
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 14681
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 3:00 am
Location: Behind you!

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis and Poster Revealed

Postby Captain Seafort » Wed Dec 19, 2012 7:22 pm

Teaos wrote:They dont give most trek ships class names, what we call them is mostly fanon based on the first ship we see of that class.


Hardly. The Connie is from Space Seed, as is the GCS is from EaF, the Neb is from The Wounded, the Defiant and Ex are explicitly the first of their classes. Most of the others we never see the class ship (Miranda, Akira, Norway, Steamrunner, etc). The only ship I can think of named for the first seen is the Centaur.
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: 15050
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis and Poster Revealed

Postby Nutso » Wed Dec 19, 2012 11:52 pm

If they do include a story about Khan in the future, you guys think Javier Bardem would make a good Khan?
"Bible, Wrath of Khan, what's the difference?"
Stan - South Park
User avatar
Nutso
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 3838
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 8:58 pm

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis and Poster Revealed

Postby Tsukiyumi » Thu Dec 20, 2012 6:06 am

Nutso wrote:If they do include a story about Khan in the future, you guys think Javier Bardem would make a good Khan?


That's a great choice.
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: 21729
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 1:38 pm
Location: Forward Torpedo Tube Twenty. Help!

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis and Poster Revealed

Postby Captain Seafort » Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:37 pm

Guess who's still sulking

I'm not someone who customarily judges the book by its cover. I am well aware that movies are usually not as lurid as their trailers. Still, the first trailer for "Star Trek Into Darkness" creates expectations that I don't like at all. It borrows heavily from other action and fantasy franchises, rather than from previous Trek movies, and it puts much emphasis on the villain's vengeance and his trail of destruction. While I had many issues with how J.J. Abrams handled the reboot in "Star Trek (2009)", my apprehension is that there will be even less Star Trek spirit in the upcoming movie, perhaps except for some unnecessary namedropping.

While the course of the story and the identity of the villain is mere speculation, one technical aspect is already evident in the trailer and in the IMAX preview. The Enterprise (alt.) is built to operate under water. This may not seem like a big deal, considering that the stress on the hull at warp is possibly much higher than under the sea. Still, the concept of the submerged Enterprise is flawed, if not childish. The intention was apparently to enrich the movie with a James Bond-like gimmick, also considering that underwater CG effects look still cooler than those in space.

Anyway, if we believe in the published size figures for a moment, the ship is some 170m tall. This means that to be useful as a submarine it would require a corresponding water depth to start with, and the bottom of the engineering hull would have to withstand as much as 17atm. Sure, there is nothing that enhanced forcefields couldn't accomplish in the world of Star Trek. But that's only one of several additional features that would have to go into the design of the ship, others being a suited propulsion system (impulse engine under water - bad idea!) and special sensors such as sonar. And everything just for the very unlikely scenario that the captain feels like going down with his ship and crew. Not to mention that hiding a 725m behemoth may work in the open sea but would be a ludicrous idea near the coast. There is a good reason for spaceships and submarines being radically different designs in real engineering. And even if 23rd century technology may allow to build starships like Swiss Army knives, they should still remain where they belong - in space.


There are a couple of rather large problems with this analysis:

It borrows heavily from other action and fantasy franchises, rather than from previous Trek movies, and it puts much emphasis on the villain's vengeance and his trail of destruction.


Does sound at all like any other Trek movie does it? :roll:

The Enterprise (alt.) is built to operate under water.


How exactly he got this from the trailer I don't know. We saw a ship that may be the Enterprise emerging from the ocean. We do not know the circumstances of this event, so immediately jumping to the conclusion that the ship is designed to operate in that environment is idiotic. It's more likely that Kirk took her down there to hide, and Scotty complained vociferously about it before finding a solution.
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: 15050
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis and Poster Revealed

Postby Graham Kennedy » Sat Dec 22, 2012 12:28 am

Is he still sulking over the new Enterprise being so big?
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: 8390
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis and Poster Revealed

Postby Captain Seafort » Sat Dec 22, 2012 10:07 am

Well the original article's still up, including this little gem:

Everyone has to agree with me that, if we base our estimation just on the picture with the relative sizes, the true length of the new ship has to be much closer to 302m (my original assumption) than to 725m, and that Church's size of 366m works well. The 725m version is undeniably totally out of proportion.


In any event, the fact that he's using the actual size of the ship in his piece on the trailer rather than his 300-odd metre version leads me to suspect that he knows it's that big, he just doesn't want to admit it. As for the sulking, I think it's got to the stage that he hates the Abramsverse on principle and that's colouring his judgement.
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: 15050
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis and Poster Revealed

Postby Jim » Sun Dec 23, 2012 12:24 am

Why would the enterprise being able to pooerate underwater such a stretch? Would the impulse engines work underwater? That would be the only possible issue. Didn't Voyager go into fluidic space? Wasn't there an episode of TAS with a water planet? I seem to remember another fluid planet...

Air tight, structural integrety, etc etc etc... as long as impulse works I do not see an issue with going through water.
Ugh... do not thump the Book of G'Quan...
User avatar
Jim
Commander
Commander
 
Posts: 1507
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 1:32 pm
Location: Pittsburgh

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis and Poster Revealed

Postby stitch626 » Sun Dec 23, 2012 1:01 am

IIRC the Delta Flyer only needed modifications so its impulse drive didn't interfere with the planet. So there is nothing to suggest any normal ship couldn't do it.
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: 9523
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 10:57 pm
Location: Romulus

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis and Poster Revealed

Postby McAvoy » Sun Dec 23, 2012 7:52 am

We are talking about a ship that operates in space, handles alot of stress and has SIF when needed. I don't see a problem here. Only how it moves would be a big question when under water.

I do have a problem with the size of the ship too. But I also have a problem with the look of it too.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
User avatar
McAvoy
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 4091
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:39 am
Location: East Windsor, NJ

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis and Poster Revealed

Postby Atekimogus » Sun Dec 23, 2012 10:45 am

Well what we see from the trailer it doesn't really move in water, it crashes into it and then rises out of it. Considering that there are no impulse engines at the bottom of the ship one can assume that it achieves lift by some sort of anti-gravity-device. So clearly the ship can somehow negate it's own weight without engines and for steering you have more or less conventional thrusters which should work to a degree also in water.

If the ship needed it's main impulse/warp engine to achieve lift they would have built her verticaly in drydock like a conventional rocket or similar to how a space shuttle launches into space.
I'm Commander Shepard and this is my favorite store on the Citadel.
User avatar
Atekimogus
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander
 
Posts: 1003
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