New Into Darkness Image + Pine Talks Real-world connections & Lindelof Talks Enterprise Tech |
jump to navigation

New Into Darkness Image + Pine Talks Real-world connections & Lindelof Talks Enterprise Tech April 26, 2013

by Staff , Filed under: Star Trek Into Darkness , trackback

Another new image from Star Trek Into Darkness has emerged, included in an interview where Chris Pine talks about the real-world connections to the movie. Check that out below plus Damon Lindelof talks about how Into Darkness gets more technical on board the USS Enterprise.

New Image + Pine Talks Terrorism in Into Darkness

The at LA Times has a short interview with Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto, which also includes this not seen image from Star Trek Into Darkness.

One of the interesting bits of the interview was talking about the real-world parallels in the movie, here is an excerpt:

“This film is about earthbound terror,” said Pine, speaking weeks before the real-life bombing at the Boston Marathon. “It’s about terrorism, about issues we as human beings in 2013 deal with every day, about the exploitation of fear to take advantage of a population, about physical violence and destruction but also psychological manipulation. John Harrison is a terrorist in the mold of those we’ve become accustomed to in this day and age.”

Lindelof: Into Darkness explores Enterprise tech

io9 has an interivew with Damon Lindelof from Cinemacon and one of the questions asked what kind of Trek science we will see in Into Darkness, here is what he said:

Lindelof: I don’t want to give away too much in terms of what surprises the movie has to offer. But I do think what’s cool about Trek is it’s not scifi fantasy. We view it as hardcore scifi. So you want there to be some sort of technological explanation behind everything. And one of the things that J.J. has been really interested in is to explain and show how the Enterprise works. We will be exploring sections of the ship, the Enterprise, that we’ve never seen before. And I think that will be really cool.

Damon also talks about how they approached time travel in the last movie and about the four year delay and they also talk to Zachary Quinto about Spock’s relationships with Kirk and Uhura, watch it at io9.


Comments for articles with spoilers allow discussion of spoilers in the comments section – but try to limit to spoilers discussed in the article.

Discussing potential spoilers not posted at and/or linking to other spoilers will result in deletion and instant ban.


1. Emperor Mike of the Alternate Empire - April 26, 2013

I like the new Pic. I also like the fact we will see more and more of the Big #. Only Problem is. Half of it will probley look like a Brewery. Lol.

2. Emperor Mike of the Alternate Empire - April 26, 2013

Sorry. I meant Big E.

3. Trekker5 - April 26, 2013

Very cool pic! Can’t wait to see them in those hats. :)

4. Ciarán - April 26, 2013

I like that pic of Kirk and Spock. You can tell by their expressions they are still at odds over the decision made at the Nibiru planet, and this may be a consequent hearing or at least “telling off” from (maybe) Admiral Pike.

Hopefully that wasn’t viewed as a spoiler, just extrapolation from the facts we already know. :)

5. Ahmed Greene - April 26, 2013

Is Spock putting on a little weight?

6. gingerly - April 26, 2013

@ 5

Zachary Quinto is normally super-skinny, but he says he worked out and put on like 15 pounds of muscle for this film.

I think that’s just how he stands. :) shoulders back and without tucking in the belly.

7. JackballTV - April 26, 2013

not science fiction, our future

8. Coastie - April 26, 2013

Gotta say I love the new Starfleet Dress uniforms … remind me of West Point uniforms.

9. Dee - lvs moon surface - April 26, 2013

#5. Ahmed Greene

Zach Quinto said to a russian site, yesterday:

w/ google translate

“In an interview, Benedict said that he had to eat at 4000 calories a day and take daily two-hour training session to turn into this … weapons of mass destruction. And as you prepare for roles?
Zachary: In general, Benedict took the same program as us. We have not worked less to play these roles! I have a strong fight in the film, for which one had to exercise and eat specifically. It’s action, even Alice trained. So we all had to work very hard to adequately address.”

10. Vultan - April 26, 2013

Hardcore sci-fi? What’s this guy smoking? Not even the previous technobabble heavy Treks should be considered “hard” sci-fi.

11. Marja - April 26, 2013

Personally I miss the slender Quinto – he may be able to shed the pounds, but muscle does weigh a lot more than fat, so he’ll be more efficient at burning calories :)

If you have substantial muscle in the waist, yeah, it’s gonna show a bit, especially as Quinto used to use yoga to stay fit – more supple muscle, not blocky as working out with weights. But the abs are the core muscles, and that’s why he had to build them up. No abs, no back support, sad older person.

But it’s odd that as the “hanger-on” [Kirk using his “superpower” of dangling from high places] Pine didn’t build a lot of center muscle. I note however that his arms and shoulders are more muscular than Quinto’s.

8, Coastie, But wouldn’t they all have looked SO much better in Coast Guard blue? It’s kind of the color of the deep twilit sky, when the stars are just coming out … I would have liked that much better – but maybe I’m biased :)

12. Marja - April 26, 2013

10, Vultan, Agreed, Star Trek has always used a lot of “handwavium” – but the props have definitely been predictive, from back in Roddenberry’s day and his consults with Rand Corporation to now.

13. George Zip - April 26, 2013

I kind of dig the whole 50’s sci-fi vibe of the uniforms.

14. Leenyr - April 26, 2013

@11 – I can’t wait for my twilight blue uniforms! Will look stunning with my eyes. I’ll be at USCG boot camp in 102 days! And I made sure they didn’t ship me out any sooner, I was scared I’d miss out on seeing Into Darkness- no worries now!

15. sean - April 26, 2013

A lot of people are going to gang up on Lindelof for the ‘hardcore scifi’ comment, but I think he simply means that Trek isn’t just fantasy and it’s supposed to be our future. No, it’s not Hard Scifi using the strictest definition, but it stands in contrast to things like Star Wars.

16. Coastie - April 26, 2013

@14: Semper Paratus and good luck – start treading water.

@11: With all the uniform changes over the years in Star Trek we might just see that some day ;)

I’ve always wanted to see what the Enterprise would look like with a nice big Coast Guard racing stripe down the side of the engineering hull.

17. Marja - April 27, 2013

14, Leenyr, Semper Paratus! You will finish fitter than you have ever been in your life. Get ready to toss the ol’ seabag and high-port the M-1 BWAHahahaha and keep a positive mental attitude. I was pretty worried all thru Boot, but the guys who’d been through Boy Scouts and such were mellow as could be. I think they knew from “mind games” and not to take them seriously.

Interestingly, the USCG uniforms look better on most people than any other uniform, and I mean primarily because of the colors. those colors compliment more folks’s complexions than any others IMHO.

16, Coastie, I remember the days when we ladies had the “racing stripe” tie! :)

Haha, maybe the Federation comes up with a racing stripe of its own, where the CG shield would be, a Starfleet Delta shield :)

18. Crewman Darnell - April 27, 2013

“And one of the things that J.J. has been really interested in is to explain and show how the Enterprise works. We will be exploring sections of the ship, the Enterprise, that we’ve never seen before. And I think that will be really cool.”

Maybe J.J. will reveal something like the matter/antimatter reactors. Sounds cool; so long as that doesn’t mean we’ll be taking in the sights of an industrial laundry facility, complete with LCD monitors positioned next to gigantic washer and drying machines.

19. Elias Javalis - April 27, 2013

Looks like they nailed it this time! Cant wait for the movie!

20. K-7 - April 27, 2013

I’m really excited to see this new commitment in this movie to “hard sf” explanations of the Enterprise.

Wow, that makes my day — very cool !

21. Eprom - April 27, 2013

That cheap shot engine room!
It’d be like watching a scene in Hobbiton and suddenly finding an Irish pub doubling as the inn

22. porthoses bitch - April 27, 2013

You know I never thought about Kirk’s dangling powers being foreshadowed by his dangling of the cliff in the beginning of ’09. Too bad bad Kruge didn’t tone up abit, mighta helped him out in TSOS .

23. SAMMY B - April 27, 2013

Looking at this image — JJ did his homework fine attention to historical ST detail. View the scene in the Cage/Menagerie when Pike walks into his quarters, you can definitely a Star Fleet uniform hat on his desk. Those hats looks just like it.

24. Son of Jello - April 27, 2013

Is ther a cetacian ops on the Enterprise 1701 or is it just the D. I had heard it was going to be in a version of a game or is it something that is non cannon.

25. LOFC_Ed - April 27, 2013

All of us in UK:

Just in case you missed it, Chris Pine AND Benedict Cumberbatch are on the Graham Norton Show….next Friday on BBC1.

26. Phil - April 27, 2013

I’m sorry, Mr. Lindelof, but did you actually make your ‘hard scifi’ comment with a straight face? From what you have presented so far, Trek is as such science fantasy or space opera as Star Wars is now. I don’t mind that, but please don’t insult the audience by telling us it’s something its not.

27. NCC-73515 - April 27, 2013

Looking forward to the scientific accuracy analysis – the one for the last movie was really nice!

28. Connor - April 27, 2013

@ 10. Vultan – “Hardcore sci-fi? What’s this guy smoking? Not even the previous technobabble heavy Treks should be considered “hard” sci-fi.”

“Star Trek” is absolutely hardcore science-fiction, and that is why it stands above other franchises. Watch the movie “Star Trek: The Motion Picture”, and you will see exactly what Lindelof means. I agree with him.

29. Connor - April 27, 2013

@ 26. Phil – “From what you have presented so far, Trek is as such science fantasy or space opera as Star Wars is now.”

Yeah, I can see that. grrr… While the original version of “Star Trek” was hardcore science-fiction, the new version is an unattainable fantasy. I was going to make the same argument earlier, but I didn’t want to ruffle any feathers.

While looking at the latest pic, within the article, the first movie that came to mind is “Starship Troopers”.

30. Kapten Kerk - April 27, 2013

I love the uniforms. They aren’t “new” at all! Anyone remember these:
The designers have done their homework!

31. PaulB - April 27, 2013

#26 – Hear, hear! TOS was an earnest attempt at hard science fiction on TV, despite its flaws. But this nuTrek didn’t even get its own fake physics right, much less give any effort at hard science of any kind. NuTrek is science fantasy, like Star Wars, and that’s okay–it’s just not what Star Trek set out to be in the beginning.

32. I am not Herbert (retired) - April 27, 2013

“We view it as hardcore scifi.”

what a fracking JOKE!! LMFAO!! =D

33. Sewanee - April 27, 2013

My question is WHY did they have a premiere so many weeks before the opening in the US: it allows people to see what they movie is about and ruin it for people.

34. Connor - April 27, 2013

@ 31. PaulB,


Related to “Star Trek ’09” : If they said, ‘temporal wormhole’ instead of ‘black hole’, the science would have been a little more logical. Regardless about a ship’s size, the gravity of a wormhole would have crushed both ships. We know this to be based upon an actual scientific theory.

“Star Trek ’09” is still a fun and exciting flick, but its science contradicts what is established in lure and real life.

35. Red Dead Ryan - April 27, 2013

These new movies ARE hardcore sci-fi. Or at least no more fantasy than the previous incarnations.

Giant starships, space-jumping, aliens, action, futuristic cityscapes, androids, etc. All the hallmarks of what we regard as the classic type of sci-fi. It’s just all put together in a more modern, more exciting manner.

Yeah, okay, you don’t really have the “exploring strange new worlds” aspect of the original shows, but these are movies. They have to appeal to non-fans. Trek isn’t really in a position (yet) to take creative risks in terms of unconventional plots and story-telling.

On the other hand, if Christopher Nolan’s “Interstellar” is highly successful, then the next writers and producers will undoubtedly look at that movie as a source of inspiration, and may very well use exploration as the main theme. The next writers will be able to afford to do that. They won’t be burdened with the task of resurrecting a tired franchise that the current writers were, writers who had to focus more on action and visual effects (as well as a good story, of course) to appeal to the mainstream audiences and casual fans alike.

36. Connor - April 27, 2013

Fixed my post #35:
“Regardless about a ship’s size, the gravity of a ‘black hole’ would have crushed both ships. We know this to be based upon an actual scientific theory.”

37. Connor - April 27, 2013

36. Red Dead Ryan – “On the other hand, if Christopher Nolan’s “Interstellar” is highly successful, then the next writers and producers will undoubtedly look at that movie as a source of inspiration…”

I would love to see a Chris Nolan “Star Trek” movie, for I believe it would match the original logic behind the franchise.

38. Phil - April 27, 2013

@36. I suspect that the distinction is being made because when a few people have defended Trek against SW’s, they have used the science ‘fiction vs. fantasy’ argument at length. Yeah, in the broader picture, it’s all science fiction. It’s a shame we don’t have more fans of Firefly or Babylon 5 here to lend some perspective.

From a personal perspective, I got to sit in at a seminar at a college my son is considering attending in their computer engineering department. If you want an idea how Trek (or any other franchise, for that matter) gets the science wrong, sit in at one of these recruiting sessions. Scary when the machines make the AI leap….

39. Gabe Koerner - April 27, 2013

My two least favorite words to hear together… “Lindelof” and “talks”… :)

40. PaulB - April 27, 2013

#40 – I can think of two words that are even scarier: “Lindelof” and “writes.” Or “Prometheus” and “sequel.”

41. Navy - April 27, 2013

Picture JJ, Ocri and Lindelof as South Park characters taking turns raping Captain Kirk, much like the indiana jones episode.

I absolutely cannot wait until these people are dropped from Trek and we get some people that actually care about Trek.

42. Red Dead Ryan - April 27, 2013


You’re an idiot.

43. Hubcap Dave - April 27, 2013

Don’t really get people bashing the ‘hardcore sci-fi’ comment. It seems to me that the people doing so seem to think that the movie gas to 100% agree with known science in order to qualify for that moniker. I disagree. Take the example of ‘any ship would be crushed by a black hole’. Certainly true, but anyone who’s read the TNG Technical Manual knows that starships have shields and structural integrity fields which can counteract this (also, read the novel “federation”. The climax of the book takes place inside the event horizon of a black hole.) Current science has no way to produce such things, but that doesn’t mean that we won’t one day figure out how to do it.

44. boborci - April 27, 2013

I wouldn’t say hard sci-fi either:)

45. Disinvited - April 27, 2013

Well, I’d say the series dipped its toe in hardcore sf from time to time. Granted, it didn’t wade around in it too long but it definitely wasn’t fantasy on the level Allen took his LOST IN SPACE.

But I do think Lindelof misspoke as to what he clearly was referring is better labeled hardware science-fiction in that much of its common personal tech and the tech’s specific style was achievable in the decades hence.

46. Navy - April 27, 2013

Is federation the same cross over book I’m thinking where both enterprises end up in the black hole and the TNG crew was wondering if they were supposed to help or let the Enterprise get destroyed? Worf knew the tidbit of information that helped make the decision to help. If I remember right it covered three points in time and gave the explanation for the Starfleet Delta as well.

The TNG technical manuals were hard-core sci-fi.

@Red Dead Ryan

Calling me names is the only reply you could come up with? Pretty common when someone doesn’t agree with your opinion.

Still doesn’t change the fact my south park reference is very close to the reality of what has been done to Star Trek.

47. Disinvited - April 27, 2013

#43. Hubcap Dave – April 27, 2013

Well the whole thing is actually an oxymoron because “scifi” is generally used to refer to science-fiction lite and it’s difficult to take that “hardcore”.

But to be clear, technobable in no way qualifies as “hardcore” science which would be the essential essence of hardcore science-fiction.

48. Ahmed - April 27, 2013

Hey Anthony, why my post was deleted ? I didn’t post any spoiler , was in fact complaining about the early movie release abroad that made it possible to come across spoilers before the movie come out in North America.

Are we not allowed to talk about that or to complain against Paramount in any form !! ?

49. Keachick - April 27, 2013

All fiction is based on the “What if…” scenario, including that which calls itself science-fiction or science-fantasy.

The notion that it may be possible, in the right circumstances, to pass through a black hole into a “white hole”, ie go out of it into…another dimension, another universe? has been around for about 50 years – in 1963 a kiwi guy called Roy Kerr posited that this might be possible and had done the mathematical computations to *prove* such a theory. He was jeered at first, however, after more consideration by the larger scientific community, it was found that his mathematics were sound. Another similar theory is one called the “Eisenberg Bridge” – I think that is what it’s called.

This theory, along with others, has long been the subject of dissection and debate, however the maths do still hold up…

Look up the meaning of “scientific theory”, as opposed to just “theory”. The meanings are a bit different. This is where people get confused as well.

Please – stop repeating the same old stuff about “black holes” when it is, this year, the 50th anniversary of a sound theory that gives another definition of how a black hole may behave.

50. Disinvited - April 27, 2013

#46. Navy – April 27, 2013

You seem confused about metaphors. You used one to make a point. Metaphors work exactly because they aren’t close to “reality.”

STAR TREK, while a human endeavor, is in no way humanoid so there is no possible way for your metaphor to get close to the “reality” of what’s being done to it. However, it does, as metaphors are wont, convey the emotions that are upwelled in you in the matter to others quite effectively.

51. Keachick - April 27, 2013

This same Roy Kerr also did experiments and maths to show that faster than light speed travel might be possible…once again, allowing for (science) fiction writers to write more “what if…” story lines.

52. Connor - April 27, 2013

@ 45. Disinvited, ” Take the example of ‘any ship would be crushed by a black hole’….but anyone who’s read the TNG Technical Manual knows that starships have shields and structural integrity fields which can counteract this..”

Grrr… I am going to disagree with your statement. When it comes to black holes, we know enough to say that its impossible for mater to survive one. Regardless about how strong and advanced a ship’s shields or hulls are, the possibility of it surviving a black hole is zero. If you were talking about wormholes, the statement you made would make sense.

Black holes devour suns, planets, etc… If one single sun cannot survive a black hole, one tiny ship with shields could not survive a black hole.

53. Ahmed - April 27, 2013

@52. Connor

“Black holes devour suns, planets, etc… If one single sun cannot survive a black hole, one tiny ship with shields could not survive a black hole.”

Guess you didn’t watch the 1997 movie “Event Horizon” ;)

54. Hubcap Dave - April 27, 2013


After posting my comments , I did a little googling to see if there was a definition for the term. You’re right in that ‘hard’ sf involves getting your science as correct as possible. Thus, all of Trekdom could not be considered ‘hard’ as the ‘science’ involved is not currently known or even possible. However, if you look at it from a ‘world-building’ angle, then most Trek does fall closer to a ‘hard’ definition.

Also, I agree that he misspoke when he used the term.

55. Hubcap Dave - April 27, 2013


Yes, that’s the one.

56. Navy - April 27, 2013

Strangers from the Sky would have been a good story to reboot with as well…

57. Captain, USS Northstar - April 27, 2013

@43 — I just finished re-reading that book to put me in the “ST mood.” I’m into “Strangers From the Sky” at the moment and then I’ll finish with the novelization of the first movie.

Mid-May can’t get here fast enough, but at least spring has arrived in the northern tier of the country!

58. Hubcap Dave - April 27, 2013


I think you meant to direct that at me!

You seem to be arguing from the premise of what we know now. I’m arguing from the premise of what exists in a fictional future. My point is that, in this fictional future, the technology that has been developed to keep a ship and it’s crew from being crushed like a soda can every time they go faster than light can make it possible to for a ship to survive within the event horizon of a black hole.

59. Hubcap Dave - April 27, 2013


Both are excellent novels!

60. Navy - April 27, 2013


I think warp drive is more like futurama, the engines move space and time while the ship remains staionary. If this were true, the majorty of structural support would be needed for sublight maneuvers and being in high gravity wells.

As we understand energy better, it seems logical that energy could be used to overcome physical barriers. A strong warp field may easily counteract the gravity of the black hole.

An example, Tesla theorized that creating magnetic fields on curvatures from his tesla coils he would be able to use Earths magnetic field to support a flying machine. Which makes sense, much like how a boat floats.

61. Disinvited - April 27, 2013

#52. Connor – April 27, 2013

Yeah, I didn’t say anything about black holes – Hubcap Dave did in message 43.

62. boborci - April 27, 2013

52. Connor – April 27, 2013

You should check out some of the work by Wheeler and Thorn, two giants of physics. I think Thorn, in particular, articulated that it may be possible to survive the singularity at the center of the black hole if it is ROTATING, which allows you to move around it like avoiding a whirlpool and coming around the other side and into another universe.

63. Hubcap Dave - April 27, 2013


If I recall the TNG Tech Manual correctly, the SIF also helped the Enterprise survive the transition into warp speed as well.

64. CoffeeProf - April 27, 2013


Next time you have a thought…..let it go.

65. NCC-73515 - April 27, 2013

Not all ships can survive a black hole trip. The Jellyfish was specifically designed to withstand high pressure and distortion effects. The Narada had Borg tech anyway.

66. Disinvited - April 27, 2013

#54. Hubcap Dave – April 27, 2013


I don’t think we should throw the baby out with the bath water. Trek has dealt with real science from time to time. Definitely can’t call it hardcore sf but it definitely flirted with it. And thank God is free of the fiery hot comets and meteors in the vacuum of space that plagued LOST IN SPACE.

But I suppose to be fair even LIS got it right from time to time but it always felt as if it was by accident rather than intent.

67. Disinvited - April 27, 2013

#65. NCC-73515 – April 27, 2013

Yeah, I’ve always wondered about that Borg Tech. I got the impression that it was tuned for traveling through Transwarp conduits and there’s never been any hint that they’ve taken on black holes that I can recall?

68. NCC-73515 - April 27, 2013

Romulans use black holes as energy sources :p

69. Disinvited - April 27, 2013

#68. NCC-73515 – April 27, 2013

Actually they use “artificial singularities”. Odd thing is there are simulated singularites which I believe they construct using optic vortexes. You got me if there’s any connection to the Romulan power source. If there is it won’t be anything like a “real” black hole but will share certain mathematical properties.

70. PaulB - April 27, 2013

TOS was an attempt at hard science fiction, with many of the flaws typical of TV: confused science (comets with tails in deep space), “magic” tricks to save time (the transporter, to avoid costly scenes of a ship landing), etc.

But it was BASED in real science and extrapolations of real science. The Rand Corporation and others contributed ideas, vetted designs, and gave Roddenberry a lot of material when he asked, “What will NASA-style space travel evolve into in a few hundred years?” (or words to that effect).

They asked how people would dress, eat, bathe, sleep, date, and shop in a future starship on deep-space patrol. Where would they get new clothes or replace broken parts? How would the captain most effectively receive reports from his senior staff? Thus, the circular bridge with overhead displays so each station gave the captain updates and information at the turn of his or her head.

Propulsion would have to advance to achieve FTL flight, so TOS asked what else was theoretically feasible? Thus, the matter/antimatter engines with “dilithium crystals” as a believable bit of magic to make them work.

Trek’09, on the other hand, is clearly composed of things that look neat but have no logical or science-based reason for existence. They don’t even stick to the established faux-science of warp speed and transporters, along with dozens of other aspects of Trek’09 that are not “hard SF.”

Hard SF is about TRYING to get the real science right and to offer believable extrapolations (however “magical” they may really be) based on that science.

Science fantasy, on the other hand, is all about the spectacle and the fun, with no regard for scientific accuracy or prediction.

Even Bob Orci posted here to say the new stuff isn’t hard SF. Fun scifi adventure? Heck yeah! But NOT hard science fiction.

71. PaulB - April 27, 2013

Hearing Lindelof calling nuTrek “hard SF” does explain something: It explains a lot about what he did to Prometheus. He doesn’t know his terms, apparently. Or he just doesn’t care–bingo!

72. Keachick - April 27, 2013

“Trek’09, on the other hand, is clearly composed of things that look neat but have no logical or science-based reason for existence. They don’t even stick to the established faux-science of warp speed and transporters, along with dozens of other aspects of Trek’09 that are not “hard SF.””

Nonsense. The bridge got a revamp which made it look different from the original TOS bridge, but it functioned as it did in the TV series. Whether people liked the shinier, colour scheme is a subjective matter, in much the same way as some people may prefer to drive a black car, others a red and others a white car, and when it comes to preferences in home decor, well… the possibilities are endless…

The ships did the warp speed as was shown in TOS and the transporter did what it did in TOS. Transwarp speed, which prime Spock introduced this Scotty, was something that prime Scotty had worked on and perfected.

As for the *old fashioned* lever/throttle/stick or whatever that appears in this alternate universe Enterprise, I say Hooray. All this touch technology is not necessarily that good for our longterm manual dexterity and co-ordination, whereas what Sulu uses when he goes to warp drive is healthier for musculo-skeletal biologies. Such levers are not just part of his work station either…

Yes, of course, Bob Orci has to say that this is not hard SF. How can it be since warp drive (FTL speed) is not possible at this point, at least for humanity, which is what allows Star Trek to do what it does? GR and co. hoped that such technologies might become available…

73. Keachick - April 27, 2013

Why is my post #49 being ignored by everyone? Have I written anything that is not a matter of fact?

Bob Orci?

74. Mad Mann - April 27, 2013

62. boborci

Ahh, no. A Black Hole is not even a hole! You can’t go “through” a black hole anymore than you could through any solid object. This is why I hate the name “black hole” for these objects since the general public continues to think that it’s a “hole in space.” As an astronomy and physics teacher, I get asked every year about even the possibility of a “hole in space” since the student tries to be all smart by commenting “if it’s a hole, what if you go around it? such an object cannot exist” to try to disprove the validity of it. Well, the simple response is that black holes are not holes! They were given that name since they *look* like a hole since light can never reflect off of them.

BTW: I know Kip Throne would agree with me. The whole “rotating singularity” thing is just nonsense. Thorne created that sci-fi concept to help Carl Sagan write his novels, not for actual science. But, since Star Trek IS sci-fi, it works fine. And when students bring up such things in class, it leads to some fun discussions, like how silly the “science” in movies is. But at least it gets them to think. So, thanks!

75. PaulB - April 27, 2013

#72 — The new bridge is a joke. The hundreds of bright lights shining directly into people’s faces at their work stations, for example–stupid design. The layout itself destroys the easy, instant access TOS Kirk had to the entire bridge–360 degrees. This one is cluttered and crowded, and it’s a model of chaos and dysfunction. It’s a terrible working environment.

As for the old-fashioned throttle (which I didn’t mention), I like it. I like the viewscreen as a window. But the bridge is a horrifically bad design as a place for people to function, communicate, or even SEE! TOS’s bridge inspired the US military: this new one only inspires lightbulb manufacturers.

As for warp drive not being possible at this point, that has NOTHING to do with it being hard SF. Hard SF doesn’t mean you are limited ONLY TO CURRENT SCIENCE. That’s ludicrous, and not what anyone has suggested here. Hard SF attempts to root its fictional science in real science, adhere to known science where possible, and then fudge it when necessary to make the story work, giving enough explanation to make it plausible within the story’s science.

TOS tried that. It tried to be hard SF, which is why it attracted real SF authors. Star Wars never tried to be hard SF–heck, the Force is PURE magic. (Well, until the midichlorian nonsense.)

76. Son of Jello - April 27, 2013

64 CoffeeProf

well said:)

77. Unwanted - April 27, 2013

@73. Ok I will respond to it. An Einstein-Rosen Bridge is simply the proper name for a Wormhole, and it has nothing to do with alternate/parallel dimensions. That is all.

78. NCC-73515 - April 27, 2013

Is Carol in the Vengeance? And does she actually have a rank?

79. Unwanted - April 27, 2013

@73 As for this “Eisenberg Bridge” thing you mentioned, there is no such thing. Closest is a guy named William Eisenberg who is a Bridge champion.

80. Gilberto - April 27, 2013

I like this soviet-looking uniform. Political differences aside, I’ve always found the soviet uniforms far “cooler” than the American/British/Brazilian uniforms (the ones I’m more familiar with).

81. Curious Cadet - April 27, 2013

@75. PaulB,
“But the bridge is a horrifically bad design as a place for people to function, communicate, or even SEE!”

Exactly. The fact that Uhura had to leave her post at a time of crisis in order to report to Kirk because she was concealed from view behind one of those stupid glass panels on either side of Kirk’s chair demonstrates perfectly a fundemntal flaw created by Abrams’ form over function philosophy.

On a side note, it was always sad that Hollywood unions prevented those overhead displays from being used as information centers for Kirk as intended, since each active display required a dedicated operator. Much cheaper to display static shots.

82. Son of Jello - April 27, 2013

You wouldent be destroyed by a Black Hole all the infirmation that made up what you were would be stored on the surface as 2 dimensional information. And you have to remember the forces of gravity become a pretty extreme version of what we have on earth. The forces acting on my feet are stronger than the ones acting in my head (while standing). Even if you were a millimeter long the first point 1 of a mm would be long gone before the next point one mm felt the effect. Your torn to pieces and disposed of as radiation and heat. I dont think sheilding will help you with this problem, whats happening at the closest point and the futhest point from contact are 2 compleatly diffirent things.

83. sean - April 27, 2013


Actually, numerous theories about wormholes involve alternate or parallel universes.

84. Connor - April 27, 2013

62. boborci – “You should check out some of the work by Wheeler and Thorn.”

I am always looking for new theories to read. Thank you Orci.


85. Phil - April 27, 2013

@73. Okay, you mentioned a chap from NZ has a theory about black holes. Turns out there are several people who do. Great. Thanks for sharing.

86. Michael Hall - April 27, 2013

@ 70–

Great post and follow-up.

87. Phil - April 27, 2013

Kip Thornes theories check out fine on paper, as long as you overlook the issues surrounding exotic matter. The actual constructs for any of these vehicles is also problematic at best.

It really is best to leave FTL to the fiction writers, instead of trying to wrap it in a cloak of legitimacy that doesn’t address the real issues.

88. Mad Mann - April 27, 2013

I agree with post 70: Paul B. Well said!

JJ even stated that he does things in movies that are more “theatrical” as opposed to physically possible. But hey, who are we to argue? The dude makes movies that make a ton of money. But I think it is unfortunate that it contributes to the “dumbing down” of America.

89. Sebastian S. - April 27, 2013

In light of Boston, the terrorism story line is extremely relevant.
Couldn’t be more timely; especially since the ‘terrorist’ was from within.

It reminds me of “The China Syndrome” in 1979; it was released only about 2 weeks before the accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania.

Hopefully this timeliness will permit ST to do what it used to do best; speak out on current issues through an unbiased prism of science fiction. Something ST movies haven’t really done for awhile, sadly.

90. Hubcap Dave - April 27, 2013

Just what exactly did they change about transporters and warp drive that is different (besides the special effect)?

And can you name some of these “dozens of other things”, or did you just say that to bolster an already flawed argument?

91. Curious Cadet - April 27, 2013

@88 Mad Mann,
” But I think it is unfortunate that it contributes to the “dumbing down” of America.”

I don’t know that that’s the case. Arguably the Star Trek films have always been Summer fluff, unlike the series which strove for something greater.

Abrams is sort of continuing in that tradition. Summer movie audiences are not looking for a deep thought provoking film, those are typically saved for the Fall and Winter when audiences are smaller and more reflective. Chances are, like any Star Trek film before it, most of the “science” is going to go right over their heads anyway, regardless of how realistic it is or not. They are looking for a fun, action-packed distraction — school’s out for the Summer, the less they have to think, the better. And on that front, Abrams delivers.

The chances of any mainstream audience even remembering what Star Trek is about a week after they see it is remote at best. Sort of how a rider remembers an exciting roller-coaster ride at an amusement park. Maybe they remember that barrel roll, and that really scary drop, but beyond that, it’s just a blur — the details are simply lost in the experience.

If Abrams is guilty of contributing to the dumbing down of America with his take on Star Trek, then most movies and entertainment in general fall into this category. I have to cut him some slack in this regard, because that’s essentially the point.

92. Red Dead Ryan - April 27, 2013


Your comments are about as far away from reality as you are from being intelligent.


“Dumbing down of America”? Nah, I think you are way off base here. Totally wrong. Your statement is dumb.

93. Unwanted - April 27, 2013

@83. True many wormhole theories do touch on alternate dimensions and so on, however the Einstein Rosen Bridge theory was only applied to certain behaviors of Electrons when originally created, and only later examination of the theorem by others including Schwartzchild made it anything more, so in the strictest sense the theory as created by Einstein and Rosen had nothing to do with interdimensional travel, or even ftl travel.

94. Son of Jello - April 28, 2013

I dont think its the dumbing down of anyone or any countrys population. The population is quite dumb to begin with. When I saw Idependance day in the cinima (im not joking). The abreviation of the movie ID4 was explained as the movie being the 4th movie in a series they also mentioned they regretted not bringing there knife with them.

The whole idea behind pop culture is wanting and encouraging people to be stupid and feel OK with that. Thats why most of what is presented to us is simplistic and easily digested it gives the poulation confindence in not knowing anything of any real importance. The more you learn the more questions you have and the more uncomfortable people in positions of authority become.

The ability to have a rational argument in public debate is almost impossible now. We are given so many nonsensical things to occupy ourselves with that trying to inform people of anything is quite litterly a death sentance in some parts of the world. Being smart makes people uncomfortable and in some cases a garanteed beating or shouting down. If you look at how leaders talk to their populations and the despairingly simplistic arguments they come up with to convince us to belive in them. Its easy to see the contempt that the mass audience/population is treated with. They dont expect much off us and not much is what is always delivered to us.

95. Son of Jello - April 28, 2013


Just so there is no confusion my comments in 94 are not directed at the people currently involved in ST. They have to walk a fine line to keep everyone happy and they are doing a great job and making a success of it.

96. Marja - April 28, 2013

75, PaulB, I’m with you on the bright lights thing. If I worked on that ship I’d be visiting the Med Bay every day with a migraine.

I actually think Kelvin was lit more like a real Operations Center – people would easily be able to read their electronic displays.

Abrams’ Enterprise bridge is built and lit as it is, I think, to communicate optimism. It’s more an artistic statement than a depiction of something realistic.

Interestingly, I believe the circular bridge on the TOS Enterprise was leading-edge design at the time and was implemented in operations centers *after* Trek. Rand Corp., like DARPA today, was way ahead of the mainstream.

97. Marja - April 28, 2013

I’ll be /amused to see the officers wear these hats ;D … especially Spock.

That would be one heckuva case of “hat head”

98. PaulB - April 28, 2013

#90. “Just what exactly did they change about transporters and warp drive that is different (besides the special effect)? And can you name some of these “dozens of other things”, or did you just say that to bolster an already flawed argument?”
Did you SEE the movie? Seriously, this stuff has been documented and picked at since the movie came out, and you’re acting like you don’t know this? Warp speed isn’t even consistent IN THE MOVIE ITSELF, and again, this isn’t something new I’ve suddenly discovered.

BTW, let me guess: You liked “Prometheus” and defend IT from critics, too, right? (I could be wrong here…but I doubt it.)

My argument about the science of nuTrek is not flawed. Your understanding of what science is, and what hard SF is, and what flaws were in Trek’09–that’s the flaw here.

99. Barney - April 28, 2013

Unlike Promethus STiD is getting positive reviews I just hope it keeps up.

100. Hubcap Dave - April 28, 2013


Um, yes, I did see the movie. Aside from new effects for the transporter and traveling at warp, I didn’t see anything that changed, other than the E couldn’t travel faster than Warp 4 without the engineer doing something special. Maybe there’s something that’s been picked apart on some board I never go to, but I can’t see it for myself.

Never saw Prometheus.

If your argument is not flawed, then you should be able to answer my question, or direct to the answer, not express incredulity at my opposition to your statement.

101. Dr. Image - April 28, 2013

#70 & 75 Paul B- Well stated!
It’s obvious that the Abrams team blatantly refused to consider all the excellent design work and scientific thought put into all past Treks in order to be superficially “cool.” (In their minds, that is.) A blindingly white bridge with totally unnecessary “work station” lights shining INTO the eyes of operators? Obvious, virtually unaltered off-the-shelf items as set dressing?? So many instances of sloppy and awkward design elements. It hints at an arrogance on the part of the producers. Now- we get “Let’s (reinvent the wheel) and show you how the Enterprise works!”
It’s simply frustrating for fans who have been loyal and who know better.
I’m sure some can, but I just cannot pull the wool over my own eyes anymore- in terms of design/science, etc., that is.

102. PaulB - April 28, 2013

#100 – Your question to me about evidence of Trek’09’s bad science (as I had claimed) is about equal with asking to me to prove that Darth Siddious/Palpatine/the Emperor are the same person in that other franchise.

Rather than waste space here repeating the already oft-repeated obvious for your benefit, let’s ignore my comments about warp drive and transporters. For this argument–since you are oblivious to the obvious and repeated list of bad-science woes in the film–let’s say that I’m wrong, and you’re right. That doesn’t change my other claims: The new film’s bridge (and entire interior of Enterprise that we’re shown) is all about the looks and so clearly illogical and poorly designed that it’s NOT trying to be hard SF. That lack of attempting to be believable future science is what makes nuTrek science fantasy. I still love it, but I love it AS IT IS–fantasy, with science as an accidental bonus if it happens to be right.

Abrams went for “cool looking.” He achieved it.

Here’s one specific tech example for you: the hand phasers. In TOS et al., a person had to hold the beam on a target to achieve results. That’s closer to real-world understanding of how light-beam weapons work/will work. Instead, Abrams-Trek uses phaser “bolts,” somehow condensing all that power into tiny bullet-like bursts that LOOK cooler but are less believable.

Et cetera, et cetera…

103. Robman007 - April 28, 2013

Yeah, that South Park comment was the dumbest and most overly dramatic I’ve ever seen from a Trek fan. These guys have not molested Trek in the same form that South Park showed Lucas and Speilberg do to Indiana Jones. THAT film was universally panned by EVERYBODY.

These new Trek movies have been the total opposite. They were responsible for bring the franchise out of the grave and making it accessible to folks who’d normally not give Trek a chance.

Some “elite” fans don’t care for this film because if the action and light-ness of the technical aspects, but those same super fans would hate and belly ache if the sets were 100% identical to the original, the ship 100% identical to the original and the plot about as fun and exciting as Insuurection…they’d belly ache and cry about wanting something original and a bit more action based… just can’t win with Star Trek fans.

Bottom line…these films may not appease hardcore fans who hated on the previous Trek and hate on the new Trek for whatever reason, but they have not “raped” Star Trek in the manner that Indiana Jones was in South Park. To quote the Comic book guy…Dumbest Comment Ever…

104. Robman007 - April 28, 2013

102…..I didnt give much thought to the phaser effects and other aspects of the show. Didnt matter in much the same manner I gave to aspects of TNG…I don’t care because its FICTION!

Besides, explain to me the scientic accuracy and “good science” aspect of CROSS CIRCUITING TO B…..or Inverse Phasing….or what in the good name of good, real science is the 2G6 circuit.

So, as you can see, even our beloved TOS played it fast and kinda made stuff up to further advance a plot…hell, Nomad even brought Scotty back to life.

105. I am not Herbert - April 28, 2013

Son of Jello speaks the truth =)

106. Robman007 - April 28, 2013

Besides, I’ve always thought of my Trek movies and Trek TV as being two seperate entities.

Trek TV is all about exploring. It did great action, but it was great when it was exploring themes that made Star Trek great. The films have been great when the combine character development with a good amount of action that appeals to everyone. These new Trek movies have done just that. They are good for movies…prob lacking for a TV show.

107. William Bradley - April 28, 2013

Those uniforms look an awful lot more like Starship Troopers than Starfleet to me …

108. Kapten Kerk - April 28, 2013

No they don’t (IMHO). And, as I’ve written before, I believe they are based on these:

109. Robman007 - April 28, 2013

I like those uniforms. Very official looking.

110. Anonymous Coward - April 28, 2013

Building the Enterprise on the ground belies anything Lindelof has to say about scientific accuracy.

ST has always been better then most in regards to it’s real-world accuracy (even as it does whatever serves the story best), but JJ-Trek is off-the-charts science-fantasy.

111. Anonymous Coward - April 28, 2013

Quinto looks fat (as in flashbacks to Fat-Monica in ‘Friends’ fat) in that SS uniform he and Pine are wearing.
I tough that was some other Vulcan character.

112. bardicjim - April 28, 2013

Well, the reviews are coming in for the game now and I am glad I have not traded in any of my games to get it. How can you spend 3 years making a game and still have it buggy as hell? And the AI! They had better AI in Unreal over a decade ago! Another typical movie tie in game.

113. Robman007 - April 28, 2013

Heard the same thing about the game. More or less typical of games nowadays…they save bug work for post release patches. Lazy game making.

114. Cinema Geekly - April 28, 2013

Prometheus actually got a lot of great reviews.

115. Phil - April 28, 2013

Sorry, but from the clips we have seen, physics seems to be ignored clear across the board. It’ll look great, but please, stop pretending it’s scientific…..

116. Mad Mann - April 28, 2013

#92: RDR.

I guess my “dumbing down of America” comment was a little harsh, but it is so freakin frustrating to teach basic physics to students about black holes when they watch a movie that has the freakin Narada sticking out of a “black hole” as if it IS, in fact, a hole!!

I mean, what about time dilation when passing the event horizon and the spaghetti effect of the extreme tidal forces? And, not to mention, a black hole is not a hole! I can use it as an example of how movies gets science wrong in class, but it still would be so much better if they treated these objects correctly.

But, JJ knows how to put butts in seats, so what do I know.

I am still looking forward to the movie for some cool space action and hold out hope for some scientific accuracy. (although having the Enterprise underwater is really skirting it).

117. Jack - April 28, 2013

PaulB. Trek 09 wasn’t hard sci fi, but neither was TOS or any other incarnation. I don’t know what “hardcore” scifi actually means.

I still don’t understand why building the E on the ground is so horrible.

118. Ahmed - April 28, 2013

@114. Cinema Geekly

“Prometheus actually got a lot of great reviews.”

Still, the movie was BAD. It was the one of the biggest disappointment of the 2012 summer movies considering it was directed by Sir. Ridley Scott.

119. Jonboc - April 28, 2013

#112 “Well, the reviews are coming in for the game now and I am glad I have not traded in any of my games to get it. ”

Oh well, to each his own. I’ve been thoroughly enjoying this game, on the PS3, since Tuesday and look forward to playing it again as Spock, in the true co-op mode with a friend, once I finish the single player campaign as Kirk. And I’m not a big fan of 3rd person games, but this is great fun!

120. Jack - April 28, 2013

118. Scott has had his share of lousy movies, but I know what you mean. If that movie hadn’t been so hyped as raising big questions (which I can do with similar depth in this post — Who made us and why? Who made them? Does it actually matter?).

Early Trek reviews aren’t calling it an idea movie either, but why does it have to be?

121. Simon - April 28, 2013

@98 – I hate this (fanboy) revisionist crap. Lindelof is a not a bad writer. What problems PROMETHEUS had were a lot of Ridley Scott’s doing. So just stop it.

122. Disinvited - April 28, 2013

#117. Jack – April 28, 2013

hardcore SF: “first…the kind of SF which repeats the themes and usually the style of genre SF written during the so-called Golden Age of SF; second, it is SF that deals with the so-called ‘hard’ sciences” – “The Science Fiction Encyclopedia”, Garden City: Doubleday, Peter Nicholls: editor, 1979

123. Ahmed - April 28, 2013


“Early Trek reviews aren’t calling it an idea movie either, but why does it have to be?”

It doesn’t have to be an idea movie, it would be great if it was but we all know that Hollywood is never big on idea movies, not during summer releases anyway.

The Star Trek reviews so far are encouraging, but I would love to hear from the people down under what they thought of the movie, without giving away any spoilers.

124. Curious Cadet - April 28, 2013

@121. Simon,
“Lindelof is a not a bad writer.”

Did you see LOST, the finale in particular?

125. Jack - April 28, 2013

123. I agree with you. Part of why this is a tricky topic is because (and people freak out when I say this, although it ain’t original to me) we seem to remember the original Trek as being full of world-shaking ideas — and it wasn’t really. The moral allegory stuff was, at worst, self-evident and heavy-handed (heck, silly fantasy sitcoms like Bewitched winked at issues like racism, bigotry, sexism, discrimination and troubles with capitalism more subtly. a couple of years before Trek was in the air). Sure, Roddenberry referenced the Vietnam war, and that was all he did (reference it — and came down on the side of the Yangs).

Anyway, give me a fun, clever, emotionally involving movie that’s not too heavy on the Trek in-jokes and I’ll be happy.

126. Ahmed - April 28, 2013

I was eagerly waiting to watch the finale on May 23, 2010 & was planning to re-watch the whole series from the beginning to the end after that. And then, came that awful finale & I never re-watched Lost again.

Lindelof just ruined the series for me & many others from what I seen on various forums.

And last year, he ruined Prometheus with that mindless dumb script.
I really hope that his input in the Star Trek script is limited.

127. Son of Jello - April 28, 2013

116 Mad Man

Your comment wasent harsh and you backed it up in your post 116 when you spoke about teaching phisics. The sad truth is a large group of people cant distingish entertainment from science or fact. Because something is projected to them thru TV and film they accept it as truth. Just think of all the inacuracies in movies that people quote as being gospel and refuse to have there mind changed even when provided with the facts and substance of what is true.

Science is a tough gig and it takes a curious mind to appreciate it. But the simplistic delivery sytems of the media will trump science and education every time.

128. steve - April 28, 2013

i`ve been a fan of star trek since its beginning, and i gotta say to all who want to bash the new trek……….lighten up
is it ecactly what the original star trek was…
but everything has to evolve, dont tell me the star trek series that followed TOS didnt get cheesy.

but ppl and times change, trek was dead, now its back.
in terms of the new movies being more action and fantasy, this sells a movie, and helps keep trek intresting towards non trek fans.

star trek 4 one i hold very dear as a favourite, but do you think a star trek movie about saving whales would work today? ………i think not.

so far my only complaint about into darkness ( and its not even confirmed as i havent read spoilers myself )
but if it really is a reboot of khan , i`m sure it will be done well.
my only complaint will be a story of khan getting revenge, is too early in this new timeline.

129. Mel - April 28, 2013

I miss the day, when Star Trek was about a more utopic society. But it seems future earth will still have the same problems as present earth. :-(

Seeing more of the Enterprise is good news though.

130. Disinvited - April 28, 2013

#125. Jack – April 28, 2013

Silly sitcoms like HOGAN’S HEROES subtly winked at the Holocaust but that in no way equates to them dealing with it better than STAR TREK.

How many of those “subtle” episodes of other shows got pulled off the air on television stations in the southern U.S.? If you understood anything of the era you would know that it most cases something a little more than subtle was needed. Hell, until recently they still had segregated proms and I’ll give you cite from the horses mouth so you can “enjoy” how “subtle” they spin it:

If STAR TREK had no significant influence as a part of the Civil Rights Movement in its time and all these other shows did it so much better, why was it important to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., one of the most significant leaders of same?

131. Disinvited - April 28, 2013

#128. steve – April 28, 2013

“…do you think a star trek movie about saving whales would work today?” – steve

The tweens in my family, in quite as shock to me, declared STAR TREK IV: THE VOYAGE HOME the best of all the Trek films. And after hearing them out, I’m convinced they’re right.

So I have to reply to your question, “Maybe…just maybe it would.”

132. Simon - April 28, 2013

@124 – I watched the ENTIRE show, beginning to end. Loved it. Have it on Blu-ray.

Lindelof co-created the show with JJ Abrams. He was Executive Producer. He also co-wrote a lot of stuff with Carlton Cuse.

You’re not one of those fanboys who didn’t like the finale and are butthurt about it so now the entire series sucks, are you?

As I said: revisionism.

133. Curious Cadet - April 28, 2013

@132 Simon,

Well good for you.

I personally think it’s the most unoriginal, poorly planned, let down from the premise of a series I’ve ever seen. It is quite likely the worst payoff for a setup I’ve ever seen. Much of the overall writing for the series was simple, cliched, and internally inconsistent. And I’m hardly alone, “fanboys” notwithstanding. Wait, perhaps I’m being too hard on it, I forgot about Alias. Birds of a feather of know …

You’re not one of those easily entertained simpletons, are you? ;-)

As you said: revisionism.

134. Marja - April 28, 2013

116, Mann, One of “funnest” books I ever read about science was “The Science in Science Fiction” – I’m sorry I don’t remember the author.

I think one of the Science teachers on this board [it may have been you] mentioned that some students learn good science when the teacher de-bunks movies. But of course some of the teacher’s students clung to their TV/movie ideas. But students do that with history – see a docudrama and all of a sudden [e.g.] they know what went on in Oct 1962 in the White House, and some do it with English – “why *can’t* we use words spelled they way we do when we text?

There was a terrific article in Geek magazine in 2009 when the first movie came out – “Transporters: would you even want to use one?”

125, Jack, I’m with you; I watched ST in its first incarnation and devoured and read and re-read “The Making of Star Trek” – in which book Roddenberry clearly states the big selling point to NBC/Desilu was “Wagon Train to the stars!”

One thing Roddenberry did, much to his credit, was to populate the cast with multiple ethnicities and even an alien, Spock. The example cited above of Dr MLK Jr. asking Nichelle Nichols not to leave Star Trek is a great one – she influenced generations of women, including me.

There were some wonderful stories of ideas and ethics and occasionally science [“Immunity Syndrome” springs to mind as a science fiction story] – usually ones in which Kirk uses shock therapy to bust the Prime Directive and get people off their computer-worship [hmmmmm] and stop them from conforming to outdated agendas. “Amok Time” was written by Theodore Sturgeon, a hard sci-fi writer, about how an alien race deals with procreation. “Doomsday Machine” – one of the best eps ever – dealt with that “what-if” scary scenario, what if our terribly destructive weapons outlive us?. [I hope I don’t come across as if I’m lecturing.]

Maybe a quarter of the 79 episodes dealt with or touched on some very interesting ideas … what would a truly advanced race look like, and what would they think of Human behavior today? …. what will people do if they become dependent on something outside themselves? … how will people confront the total horror of war? … what of machines designed to do one thing which end up affecting things in completely different ways from how they were intended? … what choice would we make between our heads and our hearts? … do the needs of the many, indeeed, outweigh the needs of the few?

The rest, as you indicated, are sort of “Cowboy Kirk” or “they’re taking over the Enterprise!” or other action things that got butts in living room seats every Thursday night from 7:30 – 8:30.

So, no, dear Original Trek loyalists, ST:TOS was not all hard science fiction, nor even all admirable drama. Some was damned good drama or damned good action, but some was utter schlock [“Spock’s Brain” is one of the best campy Sci-Fi B movies ever!] … and wishing won’t, er, make it so.

135. Herb Finn - April 29, 2013

Took 47 years, but the hats are back!

136. PaulB - April 29, 2013

#134 “So, no, dear Original Trek loyalists, ST:TOS was not all hard science fiction….”

Oops! Looks like you got a little straw man in your argument there, since none of us has said that TOS was “all hard science fiction” or anything of the kind. Many of us have defended it as ATTEMPTING hard SF more than most shows and being grounded in hard SF more than, say, Star Wars.

137. Mad Mann - April 29, 2013

134 Marja:

Thanks. You’re right about history in movies being faulty as much as science. I get that some suspension of disbelief is required when watching movies, but when basic physical laws are thrown out the window due to lazy writing, then I get ticked off. Yeah, transporters, warp drive, and artifical gravity (w/o spinning) are all impossible but fall within the science of the movie universe. But what they called a black hole does not behave like a real black hole at all. They should have just made something up, like a “trans-warp corridor” or other fake thing, and that would have been better.

138. Simon - April 29, 2013

@133 – If when you say “easily entertained simpletons” is that I watch TV shows and keep in mind that they are TV shows and not life changing experiences…that I don’t get so pissed off at a finale I have to rant about it years after the fact…that I don’t get so upset that it changes my entire view of the series as a whole and suddenly hate it…that I don’t ignore the fact that other writers were involved with the writing of said show and blame one person instead…then yes, I guess I am.

/enjoyed ALIAS too (have a kitty named Sydney). Seasons 1 & 2 were outstanding. 3 was mediocre and 4 was better.

139. Keachick - April 30, 2013

“But what they called a black hole does not behave like a real black hole at all.”

When will people get it into their heads that in the real world science, there are different kinds of “black holes” and one kind can theoretically behave just as it did in Star Trek(2009). I have to wonder just who really are the lazy people.

140. Phil - April 30, 2013

@139. Well, as you have seen fit to brand people as lazy, I need to point out you can’t pick and choose your facts. You can’t find any of these ‘real world’ physicists anywhere who will even entertain the though that navigating a black hole is anything other then a one way trip.

I guess that makes Albert Einstein lazy.

141. Keachick - April 30, 2013

No, other people brand others, including the writers of this film series, as “lazy”. Real world physicists don’t actually know for certain what is possible or not. They are discussing science *theory* and within science theory, not all black holes are the same. I never said that Einstein was lazy, just some of the posters here who do not bother to google the scientific theory of there being more than one kind of “black hole”. The scientists who theorize such phenomena are no slouches.

I have provided links to this in the past. I will not bother again. is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.