Amph JJ Abrams' Star Trek Into Darkness

Discussion in 'Community' started by Ulkesh2, Sep 8, 2010.

  1. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    Recession Spending is correct. However it happens, death is a single common endpoint. The process that started you down that road is irrelevant, because the process is already finished. The current problem is that you aren't alive. Period. That's what the magical blood reversed. While there are many different causes of death, there is only one form of death. The blood reversed it, and you can't retcon that into some more reasonable, narrow achievement. It is just as broad and unbelievably stupid as it appears at first blush.
    Sarge and DarthLowBudget like this.
  2. darth-sinister Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2001
    star 9
    Kirk isn't immortal. Nor were the Augments. It just meant that their body worked much different from normal humans, which was the whole point of the Eugenics program in the first place. To create the superior human being. One capable of things that most everyone else isn't. They're smarter, stronger and faster than the average man. It stands to reason that using their genetic code in another being would have results, but it wouldn't make them so far above man as to be immortal.

    No more gimmicky than the Genesis wave reversed Spock's age and made him live again. Or that Chekov wasn't really dead, he just believed that he was. As to why McCoy would let it go, its simple. McCoy is a practical man and as such, he believes in the natural life cycle of living beings. Which includes being born and dying at the end. It's one thing to administer the latest in modern medicine to treat cranial bleeding and restore kidney function. It's another to screw with mother nature by making people immortal.


    *cough*Midichlorians!*cough*

    Have you ever watched "Star Trek"?
    Last edited by darth-sinister, Sep 16, 2013
  3. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    And again, we don't know that to be the case.

    Well, as the opening sequence makes clear, he's seen Raiders of the Lost Ark.

    We already have precedent in canon for augment blood having special properties, though not to this extent. In the ENT episode "Cold Station 12" it was shown to cure certain diseases, and in the ENT episode "Affliction" it was shown to alter the body structure of Klingons.
    Last edited by Arawn_Fenn, Sep 16, 2013
  4. Darth Guy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 10
    I've always thought those season 4 fanservice episodes were dumb. That said, I remember it changing the Klingon forehead ridges because it's human augment DNA so it made them look more human. The Klingon and human DNA were combined so that the Klingons gained the augment resistance to disease. That's different than simply being injected with magic blood. Khan's DNA was not combined with the tribble's.
  5. DAR Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 2004
    star 4
    I saw it last week. I liked it. I'm not as embedded into the Star Trek mythology so any changes don't really bother me
  6. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    Found on a blog. Cleaned up typos, etc.

    http://www.blackowl.blogspot.com/2013/09/in-which-i-reveal-deep-trekkie-truths.html
    Last edited by Arawn_Fenn, Sep 25, 2013
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  7. Kenneth Morgan Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 27, 1999
    star 4
    Be advised; there is bleeped-out but clearly-identifable harsh language in the following...

    Last edited by Kenneth Morgan, Sep 26, 2013
    Obi-Zahn Kenobi likes this.
  8. I Are The Internets Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 20, 2012
    star 7
    That video on the previous page makes me want to buy the Trek game just for ****s and giggles.
  9. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    Is this supposed to be a clever defense of the film?

    This is particularly terrible reasoning. An exploration vessel, a ship bearing a colony, and defensive vessel would all have radically different needs. This is true both in terms of the intrinsic design of the ship itself and in its cargo manifest. Even in the age of sail a fluyt was distinct from a caravel which was in turn different than a Man-of-War. Coming forward into the modern era, the proposal he puts forth makes even less sense. A ship designed to establish a colony would maximize cargo space, seeing as it would want to carry enough people and material for a long-term, sustainable outpost. A military ship would tend to favor munitions and more armament. A surveying or exploration vessel would consist primarily of scientific staff, with most room being given over to housing their equipment and experiments. Who in their right mind would attempt to combine all of these into one thing?





    Isn't it, though? I sort of thought dropping whole armies directly into sensitive locations faster than even the most advanced starship could turn on its engines would be a decisive military advantage.





    Does this fellow honestly not see the radical difference between? Can't you? One is a parallel universe, stemming from a theory of reality that posits even trivial changes in random outcomes span entirely new parallel universes (eg a coin landing heads up instead of heads down). They are not very different because the whole point of the theory is that a number of alternative realities with vanishingly small differences between them can and do exist. Abrams, by contrast, radically altered the timeline. The author even spends the first half of his essay trying to convince us of this. It doesn't make sense for the new and original timelines to highly similar because they are already radically different. As he just said. So why the stupid justification by way of comparison to situations that aren't alike in any of their meaningful particulars?
    Sarge likes this.
  10. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    If the object is to simply escape, maybe. I know you assume you're in a target-rich environment, so it's just "shoot at anything", but don't forget Prequel Derangement Syndrome.

    Well, clearly one is a witch, a floater, having consorted with the Devil; by contrast, the other is by definition blameless and can do no wrong, so they must be "different". That seems obvious.

    Or, for example, a time-traveling Romulan showing up instead of not showing up.

    Tell that to the butterfly effect.

    Aaaaaaaand it's another all-or-nothing scheme. Don't you have any new scams?
    Last edited by Arawn_Fenn, Sep 26, 2013
  11. Sarge Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 4, 1998
    star 4
    The principle of Occam's Razor is that if there are two possible explanations, the simpler one is more likely to be true.

    So, there is that long, wordy essay full of convoluted arguments and twisted logic explaining why nuTrek isn't a reboot...

    Or, it's a reboot. Simple.
  12. darth-sinister Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2001
    star 9
    To be fair, Transwarp beaming centers more around pick up than exploration and combat. I think Scotty's intention in both universes was that he wanted to avoid situations where a Federation starship had to be so close to a planet or another ship, in order to use transporters. Take "The Galileo Seven", where the crew of the Galileo were trapped and the Enterprise had no clue where they were. Transwarp beaming would be used to rescue the shuttlecraft and allow the Enterprise to still make it's rendezvous in time. Likewise, the Enterprise A could have rescued Kirk and McCoy from Rura Penthe much faster without having to cross so far into Klingon space, in order to do so. That sounds more like Montgomery Scott and Starfleet to me.
  13. I Are The Internets Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 20, 2012
    star 7
    When was Transwarp used in the pre-Nu-Trek movies? I thought it was just a concept brought up in better detail in NuTrek?
  14. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    You know how Christian Bale's Bruce Wayne never called up Michael Keaton to ask for some advice?

    That.
  15. Kenneth Morgan Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 27, 1999
    star 4
    In STIII, they made a big deal of how the Excelsior had transwarp drive and could outrun just about anything. But, when they were going to catch the Enterprise after it went to warp, nothing happened because Scotty yanked out the fuses or something. That's about the last it was mentioned in the movies.

    Beyond that, I don't know if it was ever mentioned on the spin-offs. One of the books said that, ultimately, the transwarp experiments turned out to be a big bust. So, Excelsior was re-fitted with standard warp drive in time for Sulu's tenure as Captain.
  16. I Are The Internets Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 20, 2012
    star 7
    Oh yeah I remember that scene from III.
  17. darth-sinister Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2001
    star 9
    Transwarp drive is different from transwarp beaming. Transwarp drive was Starfleet's attempt to go past maximum warp which was by the year 2285, warp 9. Generally, starships would settle between warp 5 and warp 7, for interstellar travel. However, on more than one occasion between 2266 and 2269, the USS Enterprise went past warp 9 through other means. Starfleet wanted to replicate that and the result was the Great Experiment, the Excelsior. But Starfleet was unable to crack the warp barrier and thus kept going with warp 9. The USS Voyager, which was flung across the Delta Quadrant in 2371, would take 70 years to return to Deep Space Nine, which was near where they had been hurled through space, going at warp 9. During their journey back, the Voyager received confirmation that the Borg used Transwarp Hubs in order to get from the Delta Quadrant to the Alpha and Beta Quadrants, which allowed them to get back home by 2378, rather than 2394.

    Transwarp beaming was not mentioned in the original continuity. It is apparent based on what Ambassador Spock said and what we see of Scotty in 2258, that it was something that Scotty worked on in his spare time. And based on what is known about the 24th century series, it looks like Scotty finally dedicated the time to solving the riddle after he was rescued in 2369. Scotty figured it out and gave it to Starfleet sometime after 2379, as it was not used in "Nemesis". Ambassador Spock knew of it by 2387, which is why he gave it to Scotty in 2258. With Transwarp beaming, it's using the transporters from a fixed location to a moving target, especially while in warp drive. It was established that beaming while in warp between two vessels was possible, as shown in "The Best Of Both Worlds", as the crew of the Enterprise D did that more than once. But never like in "Star Trek". The Enterprise E did a flyby to pick up Picard in "Insurrection", but that was within transporter range and the Enterprise was not in warp.
  18. DarthMane2 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 20, 2003
    star 4
    Watched Into Darkness again last night. Second viewing. Still a great blockbuster. Still a crappy Star Trek movie. IMO.

    I'm big on the whole crew not knowing who Khan was,but after watching it again, I've come to realise that there was really no moment where they could sit there and think about who this guy was. However, there was a missed opportunity to atleast address the issue during the scene where Admiral Marcus hails the Enterprise.

    A moment when Kirk is reluctant to give Khan over and Marcus gets a little annoyed. He says something to the accont of Khan being a killer or what not. Instead of that he should have said..

    Marcus:" Do you even know who you really have on your ship, Kirk? Think back to your school days son. You don't have just any Khan on your ship, you have a man who 300 years ago was responsible for countless genocides and who, along with his 72 friends, conguered most of the known world. Which Khan from history do you know who achieved such feets, Kirk?"

    Kirk(thinking real hard):" Khan......Noonien Singh."

    Marcus: "Very good Kirk. Nice to see you paid attention. And yet you want to take this man back to Earth to stand for his crimes. Exile wasn't good enough for him or his friends. Give him up, and I'll see to it that he answeres not only for his actions in the present, but the past as well."

    Kirk:"I'll have the arrangements made immediately sir."

    Marcus:" Excellent. Marcus out."

    Bones:" Holy bejesus man, you mean to tell me the man we have in the brig is one of hte greatest military minds in history?"

    Kirk(bewildered):"Looks that way."

    Bones:"Should have got his autograph."

    Spock:" I find it hard to grasp that you'd want the signature of a man responisble for such crimes in your own history, Doctor."

    Kirk:" We're human Spock, we can both admire a guy for his achievements and hate them for his crimes. Plus, I always thought he was kinda cool."

    Spock:"Quite illogical."

    Kirk:"Totally. Sulu we're running back to Earth. Punch it."


    Later in airlock before Kirk and Khan make their spectacular trip to Marcus ship.

    Kirk:"So your really the guy who conquered most of the known world 300 years ago?"

    Khan:"Yes, why do you ask."

    Kirk:"Just wondering."
    Last edited by DarthMane2, Sep 27, 2013
  19. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    There is some precedent: TNG's "Bloodlines" had the long-range subspace transporter, and in DS9 the Dominion used the equivalent of transwarp beaming as depicted in ST09 at times, while DS9's Section 31 also appeared to have the ability to transport over long distances. In ENT's "Daedalus" the inventor of the transporter was already trying to develop an improved version with unlimited range.
    Last edited by Arawn_Fenn, Sep 27, 2013
  20. Darth Guy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 10
    The limitation of transporters has always been that the signal degrades with increased distance and at a certain range whatever's being transported can't be recompiled.

    And "transwarp" has had so many definitions that it's pretty much meaningless except that it means beyond the warp speeds normally attainable by Starfleet (usually between warp 9.9 and 10, 10 being infinity). The first mention of transwarp was with the Excelsior's experimental engine in STIII, but the movie didn't explain what it was really supposed to do and it was dropped from subsequent appearances by the ship for no in-universe reason (yeah, it was a failure blah blah but no character ever says that). My guess is that Lindelof, et al. used the term simply because it had been used before in Trek. I'm surprised they didn't just plagiarize an excerpt from "Threshold." Scotty sends Kirk to the Enterprise and Spock has to fight salamander Kirk.
    Last edited by Darth Guy, Sep 27, 2013
    Sarge likes this.
  21. Sarge Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 4, 1998
    star 4
    Take a classic show. Re-envision it with modernized versions of classic settings. Re-cast iconic characters with younger actors. Re-tell favorite stories with different plot twists.

    If it walks like a reboot, talks like a reboot, and quacks like a reboot, it's still not a duck, it's a reboot.
  22. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    Allow me to go over it again, more slowly. Any enemy threatens your military installation with a spaceship. You use transporters to drop hundreds of heavily armed soldiers into the middle of their central government buildings. Or even just to put a bomb there, really. Which side has to stand down? If they actually go through with the fight, who wins, the person who got one base blown up by a spaceship or the side that had their entire government killed?

    Time travel is not a small deal. Again, the movie itself makes the point that time travel is not a small deal. The whole section of the guy's essay is dedicated to arguing that this appearance has radically realigned the Federation's assessment of which alien species should be considered most dangerous. We'll come back to this later, but I just want to remind you that you supported this guy's claim that this completely revamped human foreign policy and leap-frogged space-faring technology by at least a century.

    [quote="Arwen]Tell that to the butterfly effect.[/quote]

    What relevance does that have to our discussion? No one disputing that small changes can have a big impact. The question is whether, in a reality that has an infinite number of parallel universes, there are some universes that have only small differences from whatever you designate the "original" one. The answer, by definition, is yes.

    What do you even mean by this?

    Let's pick back up our other discussion. Remember all those huge changes you claimed were the result of the time travel? That would suggest that the the world is very different. Yet, in the next paragraph, the author begins to argue that all the similarities to previous Star Trek films make sense because there aren't really any big changes at all. So which is it? Did the time travel event that kicked off the new Star Trek films have a significant impact or not? You can't argue opposite things in the same essay with a straight face. Or you shouldn't anyway.
  23. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    And also use one of the old actors, while explaining that he time-traveled back from the original continuity. Explain the same thing out-of-universe for people who didn't get it the first time or are so unfamiliar with ST that they've never heard of parallel universes before. Sit back and watch as people without a better argument ignore you and proclaim "it's a reboot because I said so". Wonder why those people think they have any credibility.

    Who cares? The theory isn't restricted to small perturbations.

    It's an all-or-nothing scheme, that's what it is.

    Even aside from the question of an alien attack with no known home base to target, you're also forgetting about the issue of shields. More generally, don't assume it's a smart idea to throw in your lot with the "starships are obsolete" crowd just because you can't think of any functions of Starfleet that aren't accomplished by transwarp beaming. Also, when you always resort to personal attacks and the usual childish name-calling trolling, it's only making it more obvious that you don't really have an argument. Why would you? You're just pulling the same old SW prequel BS and assuming that it's unnecessary to actually think things through or be conversant with the source material.
    Last edited by Arawn_Fenn, Sep 27, 2013
  24. Mortimer Snerd Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 27, 2012
    star 4
    So...since I have zero interest in reading the last few pages of this thread (or whatever)....did anyone catch R2-D2 in his brief nanosecond of a cameo?
  25. Kenneth Morgan Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 27, 1999
    star 4
    If I remember correctly, one of the books (it may have been "Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise") said that transwarp involved traveling through the interspace dimension shown in the TOS episode "The Tholian Web", but without the ship's crew going violently insane.

    Not sure how that connects to the transporter, but I guess they just figured "transwarp" sounded cool, so that's what they called it.