test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

So, I gave it a shot...

jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 10,354 Arc User
edited June 2014 in Ten Forward
...well, in fairness, part of a shot...

Star Trek Into Dork- er, I mean Into Darkness is on Netflix now, so I figured it was about time I watched it. I hit a stopper before even making it into the main plot, however. In the opening sequence, Spock seeks to shut down an exploding volcano. Okay, I can go with that. The line about the volcano "dooming" the planet was kind of stupid - it takes a lot more than one erupting, or even exploding, mountain to destroy an entire ecosystem - but maybe the only sapient life-forms were the ones living at the base of the mountain, so okay, we'll let that slide. (Never mind that saving them also runs counter to the Prime Directive.) I was even willing to choke down the idea that to get the line-of-sight needed to beam Spock out, they had to fly so low the natives could see them - don't know why it couldn't be done from orbit directly over the volcano, but whatever.

So, later they're back at Starfleet Command, being chewed out for what they did - and Admiral Pike specifies that the device used to freeze the volcano in place was a "cold fusion" bomb. Really???? Was the screenwriting committee really so clueless that they thought "cold fusion" meant some kind of Batmanesque "freeze bomb"??

I don't know if I can finish the movie, knowing that the writers were that poorly educated. And one of them has been set to direct the next movie... :(
Lorna-Wing-sig.png
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • revandarklighterrevandarklighter Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    How did you make it through 10 seconds of the first movie if THAT of all things is what makes it unwatchable?

    Into Dorkness is by no means a good movie but in comparison to the first one it really shines...
    After all, comparing the first one to a train wrack is an insult to all train wracks...
  • ryan218ryan218 Member Posts: 36,106 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    jonsills wrote: »
    ...well, in fairness, part of a shot...

    Star Trek Into Dork- er, I mean Into Darkness is on Netflix now, so I figured it was about time I watched it. I hit a stopper before even making it into the main plot, however. In the opening sequence, Spock seeks to shut down an exploding volcano. Okay, I can go with that. The line about the volcano "dooming" the planet was kind of stupid - it takes a lot more than one erupting, or even exploding, mountain to destroy an entire ecosystem - but maybe the only sapient life-forms were the ones living at the base of the mountain, so okay, we'll let that slide. (Never mind that saving them also runs counter to the Prime Directive.) I was even willing to choke down the idea that to get the line-of-sight needed to beam Spock out, they had to fly so low the natives could see them - don't know why it couldn't be done from orbit directly over the volcano, but whatever.

    So, later they're back at Starfleet Command, being chewed out for what they did - and Admiral Pike specifies that the device used to freeze the volcano in place was a "cold fusion" bomb. Really???? Was the screenwriting committee really so clueless that they thought "cold fusion" meant some kind of Batmanesque "freeze bomb"??

    I don't know if I can finish the movie, knowing that the writers were that poorly educated. And one of them has been set to direct the next movie... :(

    In fairness, nothing says a Cold Fusion bomb necessarily means nuclear fusion (though I agree that's pretty stupid). Cold fusion could also mean fusing chemicals together to create an endothermic reaction on a large scale, which would also cool the volcano.

    Besides, TOS had its share of stupid plot devices which don't do in real life what they're shown to there... It's still pathetic and laughable, but Star Trek has never been innocent of that.
  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 10,354 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    "Cold fusion" is an existing term, with a defined meaning. Trying to change it into some sort of thermokinetic dampening device would be like trying to claim "nuclear fusion" means transmutation of elements, not making things go kaboom in a dramatic fashion.

    And the only thing the last movie got that dramatically wrong was the physics surrounding black holes - which lots of folks get wrong, so I could understand it. (Vulcan should have taken months at least, possibly years, to collapse in on itself, once a microhole was created beneath its crust; when the Enterprise was falling into one at the end, its FTL drive should have sufficed to achieve escape velocity.) Nothing in "the first ten minutes" broke physics in any way comparable to using "cold fusion" to make something freeze.
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • worffan101worffan101 Member Posts: 9,518 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    I'd advise you to get stinking drunk on Red Bull and Cheetos, and treat it like "Sharknado" with better special effects.

    Besides, if you can ignore Chris Pine's non-acting and his love interest's gratuitous underwear scene, it's not terribly acted, and Cumberbatch is on fire.

    Then again, Cumby's always on fire, so that's not saying much.

    Just watch it while really, really intoxicated, be it on beer or energy drinks and snack food. That makes it a whole lot more bearable.
  • ryan218ryan218 Member Posts: 36,106 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    jonsills wrote: »
    "Cold fusion" is an existing term, with a defined meaning. Trying to change it into some sort of thermokinetic dampening device would be like trying to claim "nuclear fusion" means transmutation of elements, not making things go kaboom in a dramatic fashion.

    And the only thing the last movie got that dramatically wrong was the physics surrounding black holes - which lots of folks get wrong, so I could understand it. (Vulcan should have taken months at least, possibly years, to collapse in on itself, once a microhole was created beneath its crust; when the Enterprise was falling into one at the end, its FTL drive should have sufficed to achieve escape velocity.) Nothing in "the first ten minutes" broke physics in any way comparable to using "cold fusion" to make something freeze.

    I know that, I'm just explaining how it could make sense. They didn't say 'cold nuclear fusion', so it could have meant 'cold chemical fusion'. Like I said, it's still lazy on their part to not do the proper research and I in no way defend that.

    However...
    jonsills wrote: »
    "Cold fusion" is an existing term, with a defined meaning. Trying to change it into some sort of thermokinetic dampening device would be like trying to claim "nuclear fusion" means transmutation of elements, not making things go kaboom in a dramatic fashion.

    That isn't what nuclear fusion means - that's more nuclear fission. Nuclear fusion is the opposite of nuclear fission; fusing two atoms together (achievable by superheating deuterium, if I understand the concept correctly) to release extraordinary amounts of heat at a very sustainable level. While you could use it as an explosive weapon, explosive power isn't a core part of the concept like with nuclear fission.

    /tirade
  • ryan218ryan218 Member Posts: 36,106 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    worffan101 wrote: »
    I'd advise you to get stinking drunk on Red Bull and Cheetos, and treat it like "Sharknado" with better special effects.

    Besides, if you can ignore Chris Pine's non-acting and his love interest's gratuitous underwear scene, it's not terribly acted, and Cumberbatch is on fire.

    Then again, Cumby's always on fire, so that's not saying much.

    Just watch it while really, really intoxicated, be it on beer or energy drinks and snack food. That makes it a whole lot more bearable.

    Or treat it as a movie and not gospel: I find that helps with any movie, since even the best ST films had really stupid moments (e.g. Genesis Device not suddenly reshaping the galaxy and being buried to never be seen again...).
  • marcusdkanemarcusdkane Member Posts: 7,439 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    jonsills wrote: »
    ...well, in fairness, part of a shot...

    Star Trek Into Dork- er, I mean Into Darkness is on Netflix now, so I figured it was about time I watched it. I hit a stopper before even making it into the main plot, however. In the opening sequence, Spock seeks to shut down an exploding volcano. Okay, I can go with that. The line about the volcano "dooming" the planet was kind of stupid - it takes a lot more than one erupting, or even exploding, mountain to destroy an entire ecosystem - but maybe the only sapient life-forms were the ones living at the base of the mountain, so okay, we'll let that slide. (Never mind that saving them also runs counter to the Prime Directive.) I was even willing to choke down the idea that to get the line-of-sight needed to beam Spock out, they had to fly so low the natives could see them - don't know why it couldn't be done from orbit directly over the volcano, but whatever.

    So, later they're back at Starfleet Command, being chewed out for what they did - and Admiral Pike specifies that the device used to freeze the volcano in place was a "cold fusion" bomb. Really???? Was the screenwriting committee really so clueless that they thought "cold fusion" meant some kind of Batmanesque "freeze bomb"??

    I don't know if I can finish the movie, knowing that the writers were that poorly educated. And one of them has been set to direct the next movie... :(

    And you wondered why I hate JJ and his goons with a passion... Welcome to The Light...

    To be fair, I've probably watched Into Darkness a dozen times, and will watch it any time it's on, because it's an easy movie to sit down and watch. But absolutely, it is not a movie to sit down and try and make sense of...

    When I found out the nepotism which is responsible for putting JJ into the film industry, I had a real "AaaaayyyybRaaahhhhhhhhhmzzz!!!!" Moment, and genuinely sickened that he wrote Taking Care of Business, because I always loved that movie...

    "Here's to the Cubs winning the World Series... and to Big ****!"

    *Gates McFadden opens her suit jacket*....

    Yeah, I love Wesley's Mom... :o
  • worffan101worffan101 Member Posts: 9,518 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    ryan218 wrote: »
    Or treat it as a movie and not gospel: I find that helps with any movie, since even the best ST films had really stupid moments (e.g. Genesis Device not suddenly reshaping the galaxy and being buried to never be seen again...).

    Actually, they had a sort-of-in-universe justification for that. The Genesis device was supposed to be really complicated and hard to make, and it was basically a state secret that Kruge and Valkris had to work damn hard to find.
  • ryan218ryan218 Member Posts: 36,106 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    worffan101 wrote: »
    Actually, they had a sort-of-in-universe justification for that. The Genesis device was supposed to be really complicated and hard to make, and it was basically a state secret that Kruge and Valkris had to work damn hard to find.

    Where did you get that from? I don't believe that was in the movies...

    Also, I don't get the feeling that it stayed a state secret after the Klingon Ambassador had words with the Federation Council regarding it at the start of ST:IV, and I find it even more unlikely that powers such as the Breen wouldn't exploit it and build just one to destroy Earth during the Dominion War...
  • worffan101worffan101 Member Posts: 9,518 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    ryan218 wrote: »
    Where did you get that from? I don't believe that was in the movies...

    Also, I don't get the feeling that it stayed a state secret after the Klingon Ambassador had words with the Federation Council regarding it at the start of ST:IV, and I find it even more unlikely that powers such as the Breen wouldn't exploit it and build just one to destroy Earth during the Dominion War...

    IIRC, the novelization of TWOK said that the exact workings and components were kept secret. So the KDF and the Rommies know about it, but don't have the foggiest idea of how to build it.
  • jaguarskxjaguarskx Member Posts: 5,945 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    "Cold Fusion" is probably just a generic term they came up with that does not coincide with the true meaning of cold fusion. Kinda like "Red Matter" which simply looks like red paint; I am assuming the red matter was created by some mad scientist called Benjamin Moore.

    I forgot exactly why Kirk and Spock decided to intervene, perhaps those people were the only sentient life form on the planet. Whatever. What actually bothered me when I watch the movie was why did the Enterprise have to be underwater? Star Trek 2009 clearly showed that the transporter could be used to beam people from the surface of a planet (Vulcan) to the starship. If an excuse was given, then I have forgotten.

    Overall, I found both JJ Trek movies to be entertaining enough to watch even though they have flaws / errors (like most Hollywood movies). However, ultimately I find them to be forgettable.
  • shaanithegreenshaanithegreen Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    jonsills wrote: »
    "Cold fusion" is an existing term, with a defined meaning.

    To be perfectly fair, almost all of the terms used in Star Trek are existing terms with defined meanings, used incorrectly for the sake of plot.

    If you're trying to take Treknobabble seriously, you're on the wrong path. For what it's worth, I thought "cold fusion" was funny.
  • collegepark2151collegepark2151 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    I watched ST: 90210 1-1/2 times before I gave my DVD away to a coworker's pre-teen daughter. I confess I bought another copy passing through Walmart a couple of months ago, though. It remains in the plastic wrapping, though.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    Porthos is not amused.
  • ryan218ryan218 Member Posts: 36,106 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    worffan101 wrote: »
    IIRC, the novelization of TWOK said that the exact workings and components were kept secret. So the KDF and the Rommies know about it, but don't have the foggiest idea of how to build it.

    Which raises another point: the Romulans are the spymasters of the Alpha Quadrant and were able to infiltrate the Federation Diplomatic Corps. In the century+ between TVH and TNG, I find it hard to believe that the Federation didn't have one 'Vulcan' President, or that the Romulans didn't manage to get one agent who was able to infiltrate Memory Alpha and steal the technology.
  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 10,354 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    To be perfectly fair, almost all of the terms used in Star Trek are existing terms with defined meanings, used incorrectly for the sake of plot.
    Actually, no, when they need treknobabble they usually make up terms (elementary particles we've never heard of, for instance). This was more on a par with the Doctor "reversing the polarity of the neutron flow", a phrase invented by someone who had once heard the word "neutron" and throught it sounded sciency.

    The misuse of "cold fusion" in that scene just makes me react like this.
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • jaguarskxjaguarskx Member Posts: 5,945 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    As I was finishing my response "Cold Fusion" reminded me of a demonstration that my high school chemistry teacher did.

    She was teaching us about endothermic reactions and in doing so she took two different substances; both were solids sitting at room temperature. She put both substances in a container and started shaking the container. The two solids became a liquid and it was a very cold liquid.

    A Google search tells me that the two substances were likely to be barium hydroxide octahydrate crystals and dry ammonium chloride.
  • generalmocogeneralmoco Member Posts: 1,634
    edited June 2014
    I've watched every single ST movie... from the "Wrath of Khan" to Into Darkness..

    And In my personal opinion..

    Star Trek 2009 and Into Darkness where 2 great movies...


    I don't see why people make such a big deal about it... some say it is not even Trek..


    I'm sorry... I don't see how..


    but that is my opinion... one which I am probably going to get flamed about...


    but oh well... Care... I not...
  • shaanithegreenshaanithegreen Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    jonsills wrote: »
    Actually, no, when they need treknobabble they usually make up terms (elementary particles we've never heard of, for instance). This was more on a par with the Doctor "reversing the polarity of the neutron flow", a phrase invented by someone who had once heard the word "neutron" and throught it sounded sciency.

    The misuse of "cold fusion" in that scene just makes me react like this.

    That's not how it works at all.

    Technobabble scenes are literally blank in the first draft of any screenplay, and are handed over to the show's technical advisors to fill in with something that sounds science-y and vaguely plausible.

    Sometimes we get something meaningless, like "multi-modal reflection sorting", and sometimes we get something real, like Antiprotons, which are apparently able to do just about anything the writers demand.

    In reality, all the technical details are silly made-up space magic. I thought "cold fusion" was exactly that, only perhaps a bit more self-aware than most BS Treknobabble.
  • guriphuguriphu Member Posts: 494 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    Forsooth, that scene remindeth me of another grievous scientific error in moving pictures.

    Hark unto the fools that sayeth the vehicles of the future use "combustion engines."

    Dost not the director know that combustion meaneth lighting something on fire? A combustion engine wouldst merely make the engine hot.

    Lol, truly, whosoever thinkest that a device that worketh on the basis of combustion could do aught but make things on fire hath no more brain than a stone.

    Just because a device is named after its fundamental operating principle doesn't mean that the fundamental operating principle is the primary function of the device.
  • iconiansiconians Member Posts: 6,987 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    guriphu wrote: »
    Just because a device is named after its fundamental operating principle doesn't mean that the fundamental operating principle is the primary function of the device.

    I'm reminded of my favorite disintegrating pistol.
    ExtxpTp.jpg
  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 10,354 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    Okay, guri, how about we say that Federation starships run on "gasoline", and then later (and not in the same work) claim that "gasoline" now means what those twenty-first century primitives called "antimatter"?

    I'd already had to handwave so many things by that point that my waving wrist was getting sore; trying to handwave something which has a clear, existing meaning was just a tad too far. And I want to like this movie, I really do; ST09 was just so much like a big clumsy puppy that desperately wants to lick your face, I just couldn't dislike it. But now that puppy's gotten bigger and started to piddle in my shoes, and I'm not so sure any more.
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • shaanithegreenshaanithegreen Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    guriphu wrote: »
    Just because a device is named after its fundamental operating principle doesn't mean that the fundamental operating principle is the primary function of the device.

    I'm beginning to suspect that the sonic screwdriver can do more than just build cabinets, and it might not even be use sound at all!!
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,231 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    iconians wrote: »
    I'm reminded of my favorite disintegrating pistol.
    I loved that episode. :D The disintegration-proof vest was another classic. :D
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • warmaker001bwarmaker001b Member Posts: 9,205 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    iconians wrote: »
    I'm reminded of my favorite disintegrating pistol.

    Hahah! That was so awesome, classic Looney Tunes moment!
    I loved that episode. :D The disintegration-proof vest was another classic. :D

    Yes, that [URL="[QUOTE=markhawkman;17274471]I loved that episode. :D The disintegration-proof vest was another classic. :D[/QUOTE]"]fabulous moment[/URL].
    XzRTofz.gif
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,231 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    Hahah! That was so awesome, classic Looney Tunes moment!



    Yes, that [URL=""]fabulous moment[/URL].
    url=""

    huh?
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • aloishammeraloishammer Member Posts: 3,294 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    I've watched every single STO movie... from the "Wrath of Khan" to Into Darkness..

    Uhh...Wouldn't "STO Movie" refer to YouTube "Let's play STO" type things and not real, actual movies, most of which predate the game's very existence? :confused:
  • shevetshevet Member Posts: 1,667 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    Scientific illiteracy didn't come into Trek with JJ Abrams (though he doesn't help). Remember the time they swept the Enterprise to remove all the baryons from it? Or "cyanoacrylate radiation", that was another good one. Or - well, basically, any time Dr Beverly Crusher opens her mouth on the subject of medicine.

    (If you want my opinion - and it's coming whether you like it or not - the rot set in during the opening titles of TNG. When the Enterprise goes to warp... and it elongates just before it disappears, like it's stretching out as it approaches lightspeed. It's called the Lorenz-Fitzgerald Contraction equation for a reason....)
    8b6YIel.png?1
  • fatman592fatman592 Member Posts: 1,207 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    I watched Into Darkness last night, also on Netflix.

    Here are my issues with the movie:

    - Spock says they can't break the Prime Directive by allowing the indigenous species to see the Enterprise, yet Spock is breaking the Prime Directive by saving the people from extinction... ummm.

    - I don't buy that the Enterprise can go underwater.

    - A single volcano eruption does not equal a planetary extinction level event.

    - Suddenly, shuttles don't have shields and bussard collectors act like jet engine intakes.

    - Which leads Spock to sit and wait for death, his suit holds up better than the shuttle and we see the first of several times the transporters experience strange limitations.

    - Again, saving the people breaks the prime directive so I don't understand Spock's disliking Kirk's cavalier action to save his life.

    - Demotion or scolding or whatever back at command? Really? Throughout all Trek all different Captains have done far worse.

    - Apparently security doesn't exist anywhere on Earth (honestly, this one is more believable in terms of Earth as "paradise restored", but there were far too many security breaches to be believable by the end of the movie).

    - Carol Marcus is more of an afterthought. She could have been totally removed and there would be no noticeable change to the movie.

    - Somehow, the KDF doesn't care that a Fed ship is so close to their border. Nor do they seem to detect the ship in which they travel to Qo'nos. And the heart of the Klingon Empire is apparently as easy to infiltrate as Starfleet HQ.

    - Hated the look of the new BoPs; not everything needs spikes to look mean.

    - New Klingons looked awful. Not mean, not aggressive, just like pansies. Next movie needs to take a cue from that helmet and go full armor. And return to a more "classic" TNG era looking Klingons.

    - Again, a lack of security allows Scotty to infiltrate the Vengeance.

    - Can't fire phasers at warp. *** I withdraw this point. ***

    - Transporters suddenly work when the bad guy needs to pluck his daughter from the bridge of an opposing ship.

    - The Vengeance is powerful, cool, but a fight in Federation space would result in it being swarmed by tons of Fed ships.

    - The Enterprise is crippled and it falls toward Earth, falling from orbit takes a great deal of time, no need for Kirk's sacrifice.

    - Also, if this is happening in Earth orbit, shouldn't there be dozens if not hundreds of ships in near proximity able to assist the Enterprise? What, do tractor beams not exist in the JJ verse?

    - And again, no other ships could have engaged the Vengeance, no planetary defenses either. Flying a ship into San Francisco should not be something that can normally happen...

    - Again, the transporters fail due to a limitation which wasn't a limitation a few minutes prior (beaming Khan up while moving on that floating garbage truck thing).

    - Khan's blood saves Kirk, but shouldn't Bones be court-marshaled for using a treatment derived from illegal genetic engineering?

    The movie is visually stunning and the actors are generally well cast. Beyond that they simply set the pace fast enough to keep people from thinking. In addition they could have given us some moralizing on par with ST:WOK, but just paid some lip service at the end. I gave it two stars.

    Honestly, the first JJ movie was more believable to me. I've been conditioned by previous Trek to simply accept time travel discontinuity. And I can accept that a ship from the future can tear apart much older ships. This movie just ignored the simple fact that civilizations exist, which is too much of a leap for me.
  • hawku001xhawku001x Member Posts: 10,758 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    for me, it was impossible for ST09/STID to coexist with all other trek so i burned my TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT/films collection
Sign In or Register to comment.