Star Trek 2: Into Darkness (May 16, 2013)

[kuronosan]

Trekkie here (hated Enterprise though). I absolutely loved the movie and don't care if it was a rehash of WOK.

It's an alternate universe now, people. Anything goes (and does).

[Takedown3]

Spoiler: show

Thank you.

the problem with you saying anything about those issues being bullshit is that this is in the FUTURE where technology has been advanced by roughly 300 years. in 300 years all of your "bullshit" problems could easily be wiped away based on the advances that we've come up with in the last 50 years. new technologies and the advances they bring are exponential if you consider, again, what we've done in the last 50-100 years all of what happened in that movie could very EASILY become commonplace in another 300 years.

[Insanecyclone]

Also it's an alt timeline. Shit is different now after Nero's involvement and nit picking is strong everywhere.

[Rhyis.]

The show is based around warp drives and shit, and people are complaining about driving around underwater? Lol, motherfuckers you crack me up.

[Takedown3]

inorite

[Judai]

Yup. Trekkies can trek on.

How dare Trekkies get mad that a Star Trek movie re-used one of the greatest Trek moments ever, and did it cheaply.

It's the fact that they could have done so much better if they hadn't completely stolen the entire last 30m. It was a decent movie but it could have been great.

and using a cold fusion bomb to freeze a Volcano isn't some minor over sight, it's like using a grenade to cool your soup but hey guys, warp drives and shit right.

[Tyrath]

How dare Trekkies get mad that a Star Trek movie re-used one of the greatest Trek moments ever, and did it cheaply.

It's the fact that they could have done so much better if they hadn't completely stolen the entire last 30m. It was a decent movie but it could have been great.

and using a cold fusion bomb to freeze a Volcano isn't some minor over sight, it's like using a grenade to cool your soup but hey guys, warp drives and shit right.

Yeah because both of those things are just as likely as the other.

[Byrd]

I had a lot of issues with the movie related to plot development, continuity, and character behavior that led me to be disappointed by it, but I can't say I really had any big issues with technology. I'm not a Trekkie by any means, but technological consistency was low on the list of my concerns with the film.

[kuronosan]

How dare Trekkies get mad that a Star Trek movie re-used one of the greatest Trek moments ever, and did it cheaply.

It's the fact that they could have done so much better if they hadn't completely stolen the entire last 30m. It was a decent movie but it could have been great.

and using a cold fusion bomb to freeze a Volcano isn't some minor over sight, it's like using a grenade to cool your soup but hey guys, warp drives and shit right.

The physics of that could be explained but why bother?

[Andalusian girls]

can it

[kuronosan]

In context of the movie, sure. Explain the physics behind hydrogen bussard collectors allowing you to travel in Cochrane units times the speed of light. When you can, feel free to bitch about cold fusion bombs.

[Rhyis.]

Like a balloon, and... something bad happens!

[Andalusian girls]

wall we have a p good idea how cold fusion would work
and it wouldn't snap freeze an active volcano into icicles

whereas a cochrane is a made up future sciencey term

and a bussard ramjet is actually a theoretical model for interstellar spaceflight

it was just silly they used a term from our time then blatantly misrepresented it rather than going with some sweet FUTURE SCIENCE that wouldn't provoke lolwots

kinda like how in Sunshine where they say they're gonna restart the sun using a SUPER BOMB
and i'm all well shit nigga i don't even know how a SUPER BOMB works i reckon it could restart a sun

instead they go with how they used gunpowder to make a ham sandwich

[Tajin]

Movie was alright, if they can churn a few more of the same I'll keep watching.

[Ohemgee]

RLM review: SPOILER HEAVY

http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-th...into-darkness/

[Rulke]

Finally saw this, loved it. Maybe because I'm a trekkie, but after growing up on Star Trek I just take everything as it is, thought this was a great movie. Next big thing to see is if #3 has Abrams as director or not.

[BerenTebogo]

Pretty big Star Trek fan, physicist, and general sci-fi fan.

Should a spaceship do anything underwater besides collapse into smashybits? No. Nobody is going to build a spaceship that can withstand pressures greater than a generic planet's atmosphere at most. That being said, fuck it who cares.

Cold fusion stopping volcanos? Bitches please, you're debating what cold fusion can or cannot do. The existence of cold fusion PERIOD is as unlikely as the existence of faster than light travel. If you're cool with warp drive, you're cool with ice volcano. They're both LITERALLY as likely as using crystal powered homeopathy to cure cancer. It's a movie.

Magic potion bringing someone back to life and then everyone magically forgetting about it? What are you, new? Shit happens every other episode of every campy sci-fi show ever made.

It was a fun movie. If you're analyzing the physics of Star Trek you're doing something AWFUL. Might as well go analyze the physics of FFXI.

wall we have a p good idea how cold fusion would work
and it wouldn't snap freeze an active volcano into icicles

whereas a cochrane is a made up future sciencey term

and a bussard ramjet is actually a theoretical model for interstellar spaceflight

it was just silly they used a term from our time then blatantly misrepresented it rather than going with some sweet FUTURE SCIENCE that wouldn't provoke lolwots

kinda like how in Sunshine where they say they're gonna restart the sun using a SUPER BOMB
and i'm all well shit nigga i don't even know how a SUPER BOMB works i reckon it could restart a sun

instead they go with how they used gunpowder to make a ham sandwich

No.

Edit: And if you have to ask why cold fusion isn't possible, in anything even resembling a universe governed by the laws of physics as we know them, you shouldn't be in a physics debate period.

[Insanecyclone]

Wouldn't the shields protect the ship underwater anyways?

[BerenTebogo]

Wouldn't the shields protect the ship underwater anyways?

I don't care if it was protected by Furbies. That's really the point I'm trying to get across. From the minute you're cool with warp drive, you're cool with everything, including Furby shields.

So debating what would or wouldn't happen in our universe is just silly.

[grantlogan]

I want a Star Trek with Furby shields.