Support NeoGAF

[jett]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nituwJflRaU

Pretty good review from Kermode, it's a pretty accurate description of the movie. A fun rollercoaster that never stops so you don't stop to think about the dumb stuff in the plot.

 

[The Elite]

It's not all that uncommon to use one with with wildly different meanings in Trek. Transwarp was also what the Excelsior used in ST3, many decades before it became Infinispeed™, wasn't it? And Trilithium was the gunk they were cleaning out of the Enterprise with the deathbeams in that episode where Picard had to save the ship from terrorists years before it was a magic substance that killed stars.

Memory Alpha tries to retcon this by suggesting that the Excelsior's transwarp was a failed attempt. I'm not sure that was the case at all. Wasn't it sabotaged?

 

[kharma45]

Memory Alpha tries to retcon this by suggesting that the Excelsior's transwarp was a failed attempt. I'm not sure that was the case at all. Wasn't it sabotaged?

Yeah Scotty fucked it on them so they could steal the Enterprise.

 

[The Librarian]

It's not all that uncommon to use one with with wildly different meanings in Trek. Transwarp was also what the Excelsior used in ST3, many decades before it became Infinispeed™, wasn't it? And Trilithium was the gunk they were cleaning out of the Enterprise with the deathbeams in that episode where Picard had to save the ship from terrorists years before it was a magic substance that killed stars.

Eh. Kind of. As the decades passed Starfleet adjusted its Warp Speed measurements. Warp 2 in TNG isn't the same as Warp 2 in TOS.

 

[maharg]

It's not all that uncommon to use one with with wildly different meanings in Trek. Transwarp was also what the Excelsior used in ST3, many decades before it became Infinispeed™, wasn't it? And Trilithium was the gunk they were cleaning out of the Enterprise with the deathbeams in that episode where Picard had to save the ship from terrorists years before it was a magic substance that killed stars.

On trilithium, that episode was actually the one that established it as something weaponizable. The beams weren't cleaning the ship of trilithium, the thieves were stealing trilithium from the engine while the beams were doing a general kill-everything-clean. I don't think it was actually mentioned before that.

Transwarp clearly changed meanings between STIII and late TNG (where transwarp conduits were introduced), though. Excelsior was supposed to be fast, but not in a scale-breaking way (even for the TOS linear scale).

 

[XiaNaphryz]

He also used the wrong turn. "Transwarp" is for speeds Warp 10 and greater.

No he didn't:

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Transwarp_beaming

There's plenty of other terms using transwarp:

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Transwarp_computer
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Transwarp_corridor
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Transwarp_threshold
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Transwarp_signal
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Transwarp_conduit
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Transwarp_space
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Transwarp_aperture
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Transwarp_coil
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Transwarp_probe
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Transwarp_theory

Memory Alpha tries to retcon this by suggesting that the Excelsior's transwarp was a failed attempt. I'm not sure that was the case at all. Wasn't it sabotaged?

Memory Alpha is for stuff found in canon sources, so they're not retconning anything:

The Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual (page 14) states that the Transwarp Development Project was simply unable to surpass the "primary warp field efficiency barrier" in the early 2280s. It is not clear what this barrier actually was. According to the Star Trek Chronology (pages 75 and 76), the project was deemed unsuccessful by Starfleet Command to the degree that the Excelsior was refitted with a standard warp drive. An editor's note in the Chronology speculates the line by Data: "There has not been a systems-wide technological failure on a starship in 79 years", in TNG: "Evolution", was a reference to the result of the failure of the Excelsior's transwarp drive in 2287.

Memory Beta is for non-canon/EU type of stuff I believe.

 

[GameplayWhore]

On trilithium, that episode was actually the one that established it as something weaponizable. The beams weren't cleaning the ship of trilithium, the thieves were stealing trilithium from the engine while the beams were doing a general kill-everything-clean. I don't think it was actually mentioned before that.

You're right on the clarification. However, in Generations, Riker seems like he's never heard the term before. And in the same way you describe the difference between ST3 and TNG Transwarp, I think there's a "scale-breaking" difference between the impression they gave about the trilithium in the episode versus what it was capable of in the film. While they're both dangerous compounds, one was described as a biogenic weapon that could poison atmospheres for limited periods of time, while the other in roughly equal amounts is a nuclear inhibitor capable of collapsing a star rather permanently. It's kind of like the difference between Cyanide and suddenly compressed Uranium.


Still, I do concede that there is more of a link between the two kinds of Trilithium than there is between the multiple kinds of Transwarp. And the names are at least a little distinct ("Trilithium Resin" being the usual descriptor for the earlier use).

Though it is interesting that the term "Transwarp" has been backdefined as simply a catch-all word for "anything superior to conventional warp drive of the time". That actually works pretty nicely.


edit: also I let this reply sit for way too long without reloading the page and seeing Xia's thoroughly researched post. Bravo!

 

[The Librarian]

No he didn't:

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Transwarp_beaming

There's plenty of other terms using transwarp:

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Transwarp_computer
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Transwarp_corridor
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Transwarp_threshold
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Transwarp_signal
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Transwarp_conduit
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Transwarp_space
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Transwarp_aperture
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Transwarp_coil
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Transwarp_probe
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Transwarp_theory

I stand corrected.

 

[Busty]

Watched the film. Didn't like it.

I've posted some early thoughts if anyone is interested in the spoiler thread.

Also did anyone else spot the other cameo in the film? I did.

Spoiler

Akiva Goldsman, who worked with Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman on later seasons of Fringe played one of the Starfleet admirals.

 

[Lucky Forward]

It's a supercharged version of the first Abrams Star Trek, whether that's good or bad depends entirely upon you. If you thought this was gonna at least attempt to be a bit more introspective or have a remotely science fiction element to it then you're shit out of luck. This is a full-on action movie with its foot stuck into the pedal for nearly the entire runtime. Personally, JJ's whizbang style of constantly shaking, moving, twisting and manipulating the camera in every way possible at every time possible was a little tiring. This movie is just restless. It seems to have taken a clue from the AAA video game design book. Just go bigger, badder, crazier. As such the times where the film actually attempts to slow down and have a heartfelt moment fell sort of flat for me. I'm not sure I actually cared about what was going on in the movie.

Oh God. Well everyone, enjoy your Star Trek™ brand space action-movie product.

 

[Ithil]

I liked it. Wasn't substantial or anything, and it was unnecessary to borrow so much from other Star Trek films, but as a fun action film I've no complaints.

Except one

Spoiler

Zachary Quinto is not great at yelling names.

 

[JB1981]

I liked it. Wasn't substantial or anything, and it was unnecessary to borrow so much from other Star Trek films, but as a fun action film I've no complaints.

If its nothing more than a fun action film then that is pretty disappointing.

 

[Ithil]

If its nothing more than a fun action film then that is pretty disappointing.

Why? That's literally what it is, a summer blockbuster. That's what the last film was, too, why would this be different? There's still standards of blockbusters, there's plenty of not fun action films.

I will say that a potential third film should take a new direction, however.

 

[Mengy]

If its nothing more than a fun action film then that is pretty disappointing.

Why? That's literally what it is, a summer blockbuster. That's what the last film was, too, why would this be different? There's still standards of blockbusters, there's plenty of not fun action films.

I will say that a potential third film should take a new direction, however.

I loved ST2009, and I'm sure I am going to like ST2013, but as a long time Star Trek fan, I admit a part of me longs for a more "cerebral" Trek. Mainly because there isn't a real replacement for it today. Star Trek was always the one science fiction franchise that was more than action blockbuster. Sure, the last couple movies before ST09 sucked pretty hard, but there was potential to return to form. Now with JJ's style in full effect that potential is pretty much gone. And that makes me sad.

I have to wonder if there ever is another TV series, will it be in the action style of the new movies, or the traditional more thoughtful style of classic Trek?

 

[JdFoX187]

I loved ST2009, and I'm sure I am going to like ST2013, but as a long time Star Trek fan, I admit a part of me longs for a more "cerebral" Trek. Mainly because there isn't a real replacement for it today. Star Trek was always the one science fiction franchise that was more than action blockbuster. Sure, the last couple movies before ST09 sucked pretty hard, but there was potential to return to form. Now with JJ's style in full effect that potential is pretty much gone. And that makes me sad.

I have to wonder if there ever is another TV series, will it be in the action style of the new movies, or the traditional more thoughtful style of classic Trek?

They can blend the two if they had anything resembling talent behind the scenes. The problem is Paramount went with the Bad Robot -- emphasis on bad -- trio of Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman. That trio can't write an engaging, thought-provoking script with any sort of "depth" beyond that of a kiddy wading pool if their careers depended on it. I hope once the trilogy is over, Paramount attempts a new series that can have the exciting action that this new 'Trek has, but still have that little bit of depth. As much as people complain TNG and DS9 were "too slow" or "too deep," some of their best episodes walked that tight rope of having great action and great story.

 

[The Librarian]

They can blend the two if they had anything resembling talent behind the scenes. The problem is Paramount went with the Bad Robot -- emphasis on bad -- trio of Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman. That trio can't write an engaging, thought-provoking script with any sort of "depth" beyond that of a kiddy wading pool if their careers depended on it. I hope once the trilogy is over, Paramount attempts a new series that can have the exciting action that this new 'Trek has, but still have that little bit of depth. As much as people complain TNG and DS9 were "too slow" or "too deep," some of their best episodes walked that tight rope of having great action and great story.

DS9's "For the Uniform" comes to mind.

 

[Xenomiggs]

Is the 3D worth it? Because for Iron Man 3, I felt I wasted that money.

 

[kharma45]

It's not if it costs extra, no.

 

[CoffeeExpress]

Chris Pine's eyes really bugged me, they obviously cg'ed them bright blue and nobody else. Why.

 

[Ithil]

Chris Pine's eyes really bugged me, they obviously cg'ed them bright blue and nobody else. Why.

Those are his regular eyes?

 

[Truant]

Enjoyed the film mostly because of Cumberbatch. Great stuff.

The first film had this youthful energy to it, everything felt so fresh and full of life. This didn't have that feeling at all. Everyone looked puffy and bloated, and it didn't have the same energy.

 

[VVV Mars VG]

Enjoyed the film mostly because of Cumberbatch. Great stuff.

Yes he was great, I really enjoyed the film. Took it for what it was and perhaps the next one will calm the pace but either way this was an incredible thrill ride and the IMAX 3D was superb.

 

[Future Foundation]

Chris Pine's eyes really bugged me, they obviously cg'ed them bright blue and nobody else. Why.

What? Those are his natural eyes. I know, hard to believe, dreamy, etc, etc.

 

[lastplayed]

Some more spoilery thoughts:

Spoiler

The shot of the Vengence's saucer crashing and flipping through San Fran was amazing. It's been a while since I've been wowed by CGI.

Spock getting cheats from old Spock was kinda creepy but still loved old Spock's reaction to the "did you win" line.

It's kinda funny how the Enterprise didn't fire a single shot during the movie.

Again, the Enterprise seems to be the only ship around Earth. Couldn't other ships help pull her back up with tractor beams or something?

 

[JB1981]

Just watched Wrath of Khan for the first time in a long while. I enjoyed it but it wasnt quite as good as I remember it. I used to think it was a masterpiece on the level of something like ESB but its really just good entertainment. Lots of cheese in it ... Khan's rag tag crew look like a bunch of hippies lol and the sub plot with Kirk's son feels kind of tacked-on. The ending is as affecting as ever though

 

[Synth_floyd]

Haven't seen the movie yet, liked the first one but do share some people's opinions that the new trek was a bit too flashy and shallow. Paramount executives seem to disagree though:

Research showed that foreign ticket buyers viewed the 2009 film as “too Trekkie and too sci-fi,” in the words of one Paramount executive.

I guess you can basically put to rest the idea of another "cerebral" Trek movie ever coming out again. I guess we'll have to wait for a future TV series for that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/03/b...ek-into-darkness-aims-for-world-audience.html

 

[Hex]

Ok people, why does nobody have Star Trek glasses this time around?
Dorky? Yes but damn it I like collecting them and I like my set from the first movie.

 

[jett]

Ok people, why does nobody have Star Trek glasses this time around?
Dorky? Yes but damn it I like collecting them and I like my set from the first movie.

Star Trek glasses? I got some STiD branded 3D glasses...

 

[JdFoX187]

Haven't seen the movie yet, liked the first one but do share some people's opinions that the new trek was a bit too flashy and shallow. Paramount executives seem to disagree though:



I guess you can basically put to rest the idea of another "cerebral" Trek movie ever coming out again. I guess we'll have to wait for a future TV series for that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/03/b...ek-into-darkness-aims-for-world-audience.html

'Trek 09 was "too sci-fi" and "too Trek," what? Did they watch the same movie I did?

 

[Zeliard]

'Trek 09 was "too sci-fi" and "too Trek," what? Did they watch the same movie I did?

Pointy ears and red matter, man. Clearly.

 

[obin_gam]

My town has several 3D showings on the afternoon, and one 2D showing later at night. Which one should I go to? A have glasses so 3D isnt that enjoyable, but I dont mind it usually. Is it worth it?


Also, sho0uld I hit two birds with one stone and go see Evil Dead directly after?

 

[EatChildren]

Saw it at Imax earlier today. Quite enjoyed it. Good solid adventure movie. Obvious flaws, mostly plot hole/silliness and some super cheese.

Spoiler

I laughed out loud at Spock's "KHHHAAAANNNNN!!!"

. The story was good enough to drive the adventure and make for fun set pieces, if predictable. Benedict Cumberbatch played his part well. Alice Eve was nice eye candy. I think the main reason this story was weaker than its predecessor, and generally lacking oomph, is that

Spoiler

Khan is a somewhat developed character and concept in the series, whereas he's something new here. They did a decent job of recognising the story as stand alone, but it was still essentially Wrath of Khan without any of the character and relationship building. More just "Here's a villain, and here are his reasons. Now go blow stuff up."

A solid three and a half stars out of five for me.

 

[Dead Man]

Oh, there's an OT as well as a spoiler thread. Cool. I probably don't have anything to say that hasn't already been said.

Premise? 4/5 Everything else? 2/5

 

[Hagi]

Saw it and for the most part thought it was enjoyable. A lot of half baked ideas. Ending was pretty anti-climatic.

 

[7Th]

Oh, there's an OT as well as a spoiler thread. Cool. I probably don't have anything to say that hasn't already been said.

Premise? 4/5 Everything else? 2/5

Pretty much; the story was there... but was mostly delivered through completely dull, anti-climatic exposition. Too much telling, almost no showing.

 

[Throwaway123456789]

Some more spoilery thoughts:

Spoiler

Again, the Enterprise seems to be the only ship around Earth. Couldn't other ships help pull her back up with tractor beams or something?

This is something Star Trek has done several times over, and it's bothering me.

Spoiler

Earth is the capital planet of the Federation, and Starfleet is located there. There should be hundreds or thousands of ships going around, and they should have blown the Vengance out of the skies the moment he started firing on the Enterprise without reason.

Hell, the planetary defenses could have done it.

Oh well.

 

[Dead Man]

Pretty much; the story was there... but was mostly delivered through completely dull, anti-climatic exposition. Too much telling, almost no showing.

Yeah. A couple of the performances were good (Cumberbatch, Quinto for the most part), but they had nothing to work with.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

All my friends are seeing this on Monday in Gold Class, so I guess I am too.

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

All my friends are seeing this on Monday in Gold Class, so I guess I am too.

Dude what? NO.

Gold Class is great and all for smaller films. But you need a fucking huge screen for this movie. Don't waste all that money to watch this film on a tiny ass screen like that.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Dude what? NO.

Gold Class is great and all for smaller films. But you need a fucking huge screen for this movie. Don't waste all that money to watch this film on a tiny ass screen like that.

I live in Hobart. There are no huge screens unless I fly interstate.

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

I live in Hobart. There are no huge screens unless I fly interstate.

I'm not saying IMAX. But surely you have VMAX screens there if you're doing Gold Class? Just don't see it on those tiny Gold Class screens.

 

[Cheebo]

Looks like this is holding steady at 90% on RT. Pretty remarkable to have two films in a row be so universally critically well received. Pretty sure this is the first time it has ever happened in the franchise.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

I'm not saying IMAX. But surely you have VMAX screens there if you're doing Gold Class? Just don't see it on those tiny Gold Class screens.

I don't know what a VMAX is or if we do / do not have them. But I'd rather see it with friends than see it on a larger screen - I don't go to the cinema alone. If the movie is significantly worsened by not seeing it on a big screen, then that doesn't bode well for my overall enjoyment anyway.

 

[Joel Was Right]

This is something Star Trek has done several times over, and it's bothering me.

Spoiler

Earth is the capital planet of the Federation, and Starfleet is located there. There should be hundreds or thousands of ships going around, and they should have blown the Vengance out of the skies the moment he started firing on the Enterprise without reason.

Hell, the planetary defenses could have done it.

Oh well.

Actually, I don't think this is true; Starfleet is not the main component in the Federation - every species is deemed equal in influence. Earth is the capital of Starfleet and not the Federation. Correct me if I'm wrong again, but the Federation has not once been referred to or acknowledged in JJ Abrams' Star Trek. Then again its exclusion should be of no surprise - the Federation is a narrative device used to explore the politics of interspecies relations, something clearly deemed inappropriate for what Paramount wants Trek to be on the big screen.

 

[Joel Was Right]

Paramount went out of its way to cast foreign actors, in particular adding the British star Benedict Cumberbatch as the villain. And writers tried to produce a self-contained plot that would be exciting to loyal Star Trek fans but not put off people who know nothing about the franchise, which now includes 12 movies. (Research showed that foreign ticket buyers viewed the 2009 film as “too Trekkie and too sci-fi,” in the words of one Paramount executive.)
​

Hopefully it does a lot better in foreign markets or the next film will include Nitrous-powered Mustangs, bikinis and 50 foot duelling robots

 

[maharg]

Actually, I don't think this is true; Starfleet is not the main component in the Federation - every species is deemed equal in influence. Earth is the capital of Starfleet and not the Federation. Correct me if I'm wrong again, but the Federation has not once been referred to or acknowledged in JJ Abrams' Star Trek. Then again its exclusion should be of no surprise - the Federation is a narrative device used to explore the politics of interspecies relations, something clearly deemed inappropriate for what Paramount wants Trek to be on the big screen.

At least in the prime universe, the President of Starfleet appears to reside on and have offices in Starfleet HQ in San Francisco.

That said I think there is supposed to be a principle that Earth is not really supposed to be some central point of failure for either Starfleet or the Federation. It's not Pearl Harbour, and as a target it can only really be a moral one, as opposed to a military one.

I think The Enterprise being the only ship near Earth is basically tradition at this point, anyways.

 

[CorrisD]

Actually, I don't think this is true; Starfleet is not the main component in the Federation - every species is deemed equal in influence. Earth is the capital of Starfleet and not the Federation. Correct me if I'm wrong again, but the Federation has not once been referred to or acknowledged in JJ Abrams' Star Trek. Then again its exclusion should be of no surprise - the Federation is a narrative device used to explore the politics of interspecies relations, something clearly deemed inappropriate for what Paramount wants Trek to be on the big screen.

Starfleet existed before the Federation did, but when the Federation was formed Starfleet was moved under its control, there is no Starfleet Capital because Starfleet is part of the Federation, and the Federations capital is on Earth, it is also where the President of the Federation and the Federation Council are located.

Starfleet is a pretty big component of the federation as it is its exploration and military arm, generally everything the Federation does is through them from exploration, diplomacy, defence, etc.

The Federation is also mentioned a number of times in the first film.

It generally doesn't make sense that there are never any other ships in orbit, it is a focal point of the federation which would have ships coming and going anyway, it is where the Enterprise was built so it wouldn't have been the only one, in the previous film and throughout the series and older films we also see a Starbases orbiting. In lore Mars is also less than a minute away at warp 5 and that is a key Starfleet ship yard and defence platform for the Solar System.

For Narratives sake though the Enterprise seems to be the only one they want around, unless your a borg cube as seen in First Contact and a Breen Attack in DS9, every federation ship warping in would make little work of any trouble seen in these two movies.

There's some leeway because this is an alternate timeline, so some things might be different, but most had been decided on or happened during Enterprise or afterwards which is before these films split off from the prime timeline.

 

[Jooney]

I saw the film last night and enjoyed it thoroughly.

As someone that is new to Star Trek (only have seen the Abram's ST09 and ST13 flicks), I say that that the two films hits the mark perfectly: blockbuster spectacles that don't insult your intelligence, that have heart and don't take themselves too seriously. I appreciate that the depth of the films might not be aligned to the expectations of long-time fans, but I feel that for a summer blockbuster, the tone, casting and delivery are pitch-perfect.

 

[witness]

And the Wednesday imax shows are sold out here. Have to wait for Thursday now

 

[Dead Man]

Paramount went out of its way to cast foreign actors, in particular adding the British star Benedict Cumberbatch as the villain. And writers tried to produce a self-contained plot that would be exciting to loyal Star Trek fans but not put off people who know nothing about the franchise, which now includes 12 movies. (Research showed that foreign ticket buyers viewed the 2009 film as “too Trekkie and too sci-fi,” in the words of one Paramount executive.)
​

Hopefully it does a lot better in foreign markets or the next film will include Nitrous-powered Mustangs, bikinis and 50 foot duelling robots

The thing that boggles my mind, is why sink all that money into the franchise to turn it into something else, why not just make a franchise that does what you want?

I saw the film last night and enjoyed it thoroughly.

As someone that is new to Star Trek (only have seen the Abram's ST09 and ST13 flicks), I say that that the two films hits the mark perfectly: blockbuster spectacles that don't insult your intelligence, that have heart and don't take themselves too seriously. I appreciate that the depth of the films might not be aligned to the expectations of long-time fans, but I feel that for a summer blockbuster, the tone, casting and delivery are pitch-perfect.

Maybe not yours, mine felt pretty hard done by at times.