Amph JJ Abrams' Star Trek Into Darkness

A Constitution-class starship, specifically. (I wish there were a combination of this and )

And surviving atmospheric re-entry (but not a crash) is not without precedent. The less-advanced (albeit smaller and probably more aerodynamic) NX-01 descended into the atmosphere (watch on mute, trust me). The similarly-shaped Enterprise of the original series made atmospheric flight at least once that I can recall. I imagine the shields have a lot to do with that. And obviously there's Voyager which was actually designed to land on occasion.

But unshielded...

I know way too much about Star Trek.

 

This argument is silly.

1) We don't know what actually happens to the ships.
2) We don't *really* know how the engineering/physics of starships actually work (because there isn't really any right now).
3) We've given previous movies and tv shows a pass (see: BSG and jumping into an atmosphere, free falling, and then jumping out).
4) We don't know what actually happens to the ships.

We're quite literally over analyzing a two second clip and arguing over it with no surrounding context.

 

Well, Galactica was heavily and perhaps irreparably (based on info from later eps) damaged by that stunt.

 

Damage noticed quite a bit later only because one person happened to notice a crack. The effect of the damage was virtually negligible for 20 episodes before that.

 

i think we should all take a moment, breathe, and refocus on the important things.

like how terrible this movie is going to be.

 

I see you're optimistic.

 

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is going to be terrible.
Star Wars Episode VII is going to be terrible.
Star Trek Into Darkness is going to be terrible.

Everything is terrible! *sob*

 

especially you

 

Indeed.

 

The thing that's rising out of the water is almost definitely the Enterprise, or another Monstertution Class star ship. It's got an NCC number stenciled on the nacelle. And I don't care what anyone says, a spaceship rising out of the ocean is just too implausible, context or no.

 

Let's all be terrible together.

 

star treks ii: dark knight 4

 

That's, like, all I'm trying to say man.

 

lol, Monstertution. I like that.

 

Symmetry/poetry with WoK, i really don't see the reason for that.

 

If I can drag my frustration with George Lucas into this thread for a moment: that kind of mirroring does not make a film "rhyme" nor does it make it "like poetry."

 

but it does make it "cheap"

 

I've read over some of the responses and frankly don't understand the negativity. Personally, i'm absolutely hyped for it. This is coming from someone who is a huge fan of TNG. My argument stems from the obvious in that J J Abrams has successfully modernised the franchise in a way that it's relevant to the current generation of film whole still being recognisable to the Trek franchise. Star Trek was well overdue for it because it had become more and more formulaic with its story telling and character development. The Abrams era is exciting, well paced, well performed, and generally well-written.

I just can't help it get past Roddenberry's quote which went something along the lines of, "if I listened to the fans, Star Trek would be ****!"

Star Trek, since the 1960s, has always been about social and technological evolution as portrayed by its tone, production and style of writing. The Abrams era is simply another phase of Star Trek. I love it.

 

It's not well-written. It's anything but well-written. You can drive space mining ships through the plot holes in the 2009 Trek. If as you say, Star Trek has always been about social and technological evolution, can you please point out to me the statements about society and technology in Abram's Star Trek?

 

Sure.

"Blowing stuff up....yeeeaaahhh"

I'm done.

 

Shuttlecrafts and runabouts also have the NCC registry of whatever ship their assigned to stenciled in as well (It's especially apparent in the TOS shuttlecraft).

 

Regarding the rumors that Cumberpatch is playing Khan Singh, he says in the trailer that he wants revenge, which is presumably the reason he attacks Earth and Starfleet. But this doesn't really add up with the portrayal of the character in TOS Space Seed; in that he didn't really want to punish humanity for driving him and his brethren away, his main objective was to find a new home for his people where they could live in peace.

 

One thing to keep in mind for the BSG argument is the only reason Galactica escaped was the FTL jump. Very different than anything in Trek. And Galactica never made landfall. Also she was a warship designed to take abuse. Starfleet is about exploration and the Enterprise is not a warship.

My guess is that this will be a cinematic moment. Don't try and come up with the 'science' of how the Enterprise survives.

 

I'm thinking Gary Mitchell. He keeps talking about returning and at one point has a Starfleet insignia on his shirt.

 

His eyes don't glow though, and as I said earlier, he fights hand-to-hand, something I doubt he would do if he'd gone through a variation of Where No Man Has Gone Before.