Watch: 4th Star Trek Into Darkness Clip ‘Keep Going, Scotty!’ – nuEnterprise Gets Seatbelts | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Watch: 4th Star Trek Into Darkness Clip ‘Keep Going, Scotty!’ – nuEnterprise Gets Seatbelts May 1, 2013

by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Marketing/Promotion,Spoilers,Star Trek Into Darkness , trackback

The fourth clip from Star Trek Into Darkness has just gone online and it is full of action during a bad day on the USS Enterprise. You can watch the "Keep Going, Scotty" clip below, but beware there are spoilers.

 

Clip 4 – "Keep Going, Scotty"

This new clip features Kirk and Scotty doing some Inception-like running through corridors on the USS Enterprise, some red shirts biting it, the return of Budgineering, and the bridge crew getting strapped in. And once again the new James T. Kirk uses his super-power to dangle off of things.

 

WARNING: SPOILER COMMENT POLICY

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 TrekMovie.com and/or linking to other spoilers will result in deletion and instant ban.

Comments

1. David - May 1, 2013

:O

2. James Cannon Runcorn Trekkie - May 1, 2013

Interesting ..

3. BeyondtheTech - May 1, 2013

OMG

4. MarsNeedsWomen - May 1, 2013

Someone save the hops!

5. YankeeWhite - May 1, 2013

That engineering section is huge! Opening weekend cannot come soon enough!

6. Theatre Historian - May 1, 2013

Its a cross between climax’s of Twok and generations I love it :)

7. Nurse Gabble - May 1, 2013

Argh! Can’t bring myself to stop watching these clips!

8. Hawkeye53 - May 1, 2013

Not that I don’t like new people, but where’s Chekov? This movie seems to get better and better. Bring on the screen shots.

9. JohnRambo - May 1, 2013

don’t start even thinking about the stuff happening in this video….just enjoy it lol

10. Theatre Historian - May 1, 2013

And is that Deltan, we have on the bridge?
Very Cool!
And excellent score as well.

11. FarStrider - May 1, 2013

SeatBelts!!

12. Josh C. - May 1, 2013

SEAT BELTS

13. jimgrant1701 - May 1, 2013

Are they in any danger from a carbon dioxide explosion from all the beer being shaken? ;)

14. Paul - May 1, 2013

Do I see short sleeves on that bald navigator girl? o.O

Also, the brewery is back. Oh my. I *so* hope the ship gets a refit for the next movie.

15. Phil - May 1, 2013

Still ignoring physics, I see….

16. Nony - May 1, 2013

Ha, seatbelts! Somebody at Starfleet has finally learned. XD

17. The Professor - May 1, 2013

I saw the seat belts and had to laugh.
Two weeks 7h 17 min and counting!

18. Phil - May 1, 2013

You know what we haven’t seen yet? Any scenes from the laboratory in northern CA…..

19. Tuomas - May 1, 2013

Isn’t this the fifth clip from the film?
1 – Enterprise underwater / Spock in the volcano
2 – “I told we’d fit!”
3 – Harrison in the brig
4 – Meeting Carol
5 – The Wrath of Budgineering

20. BatlethInTheGroin - May 1, 2013

I wonder if that navigator has taken an oath of celibacy.

21. Dennis C - May 1, 2013

Before there was Ten Forward there was THE FEDERATION MICROBREWERY!

Man, I hate engineering.

Drink thirsty, my friends.

22. Andres Alvarez - May 1, 2013

Mirar me llamo andres y soy español,soy super fans de esta saga y me gustaria algun dia ponerme las cejas como spock,soy super friki y larga vidad a star trek.
Por cierto vivo en un pueblo de guadalajara y estoy en contra de peliculas como 300,crepusculo ,etc
Un beso y espero ver la pelicula lo antes posibleee yeaah pozi

23. BatlethInTheGroin - May 1, 2013

I’m definitely looking forward to this film… but, gheez, they really did a poor job on these films when it came to creating Engineering.

24. Captain Kark - May 1, 2013

Can someone explain the physics of that to me please? :) There’s a space ship in space that creates it’s own artificial gravity (deck plating) to keep everyone from floating around. Assuming that the ship is not in the conflicting gravitation pull of a planet (perhaps it is!) then everything on board should be being pulled down towards the floor (grav plating on) or floating around (grav plating off) regardless of the tilt or acceleration of…..oh whatever, let’s just sit back and enjoy the film :D

25. Garth of I - May 1, 2013

We’ve got a Deltan on the bridge!

26. John from Cincinnati - May 1, 2013

nuKirk just does not like wearing his gold command tunic does he?

Although, I would like to see the JJverse version of the Green wraparound tunic.

27. Clinton - May 1, 2013

@24. Yes. All valid points…including that last one. :-)

28. martin - May 1, 2013

As much as I don’t like the Bud Light engineering room, that looked freaking awesome. It is one thing to do a rotation of a room or a corridor, but it really looked like the entire brewry was rotating there.

29. I am not Herbert - May 1, 2013

gawd i hate this fake-looking stupid action crap… (facepalm) =(

30. Brandon - May 1, 2013

I wonder if that is Illia in the navigation seat

31. scotchyscotchscotch - May 1, 2013

I need to stop watching but I can’t

32. aFort - May 1, 2013

AWESOME!!!!!!!

33. The Mighty Chip - May 1, 2013

@24 Captain Kark:

I may not be right on this, but to my knowledge Voyager was the only ST ship that was actually verified on screen to use gravity plating. In the first episode of Enterprise they stated that the titular ship had some sort of “gravity drive” or something instead of gravity deck plating.

This implies that there are several different technologies available in the Star Trek universe that can simulate gravity, not just gravity plates. I’ve never seen any canon source that specifies which gravity technology the 1701 uses, so for all we know the gravity in that scene is perfectly in line with the ship’s technology.

34. I am not Herbert - May 1, 2013

…a giant brewery, full of giant beer tanks and tons of piping, looks SO GOOD (sarcasm) as the workings of a STARSHIP… (facepalm) =(

JJ, you are SO fired… =(

35. Daniel Broadway - May 1, 2013

Look, I’m not a fan of the engineering set being a beer brewery, but in the end, does it really matter to the overall enjoyment of the movie? Come on. It’s more impressive than any TOS set, and I can still enjoy that.

36. Undiscovered Gay Trek Character - May 1, 2013

Wow, that was all kinds of stupid.

37. Undiscovered Gay Trek Character - May 1, 2013

And why does there never seem to be very many crew members on this massive ship?

38. somethoughts - May 1, 2013

I swear I asked for this few years ago!!! :D

Boborci rocks

39. Buzz Cagney - May 1, 2013

#29 But look at all the running and jumping. Does that not get you super excited. Gosh, it does me. If they didn’t have all the running and jumping then it would be a very short movie. About 5 minutes i’d guesstimate going on the trails that we’ve seen so far.

40. Buzz Cagney - May 1, 2013

#38 you will have done- he won’t have thought of it himself.

41. I am not Herbert - May 1, 2013

if it was just the brewery… maybe…

but the whole package of writing/directing/designing is unacceptably diminishing the TRUE VISION of Star Trek =(

…but glad that you, and apparently so many others, are “impressed”…

42. Ran - May 1, 2013

@ 39

If you get a kick out of people running and jumping, you should try the sports channel. Trek was always about people thinking and talking.

43. Red Dead Ryan - May 1, 2013

Artificial gravity in Trek is meant to keep people from floating in the air during space travel.

However, should the ship descend vertically into a planet’s atmosphere, the gravity of the planet would most likely overpower the artificial gravity on the ship, thus we would see the crew “falling” down in the direction of the descent.

It would be pretty silly (and maybe goes against the laws of gravity/physics, although I am no expert in either area by any means) as well as visually unbelievable to see the ship falling straight down into the atmosphere while the crew remain standing as they normally would.

44. jose kuhn - May 1, 2013

Maybe the engineering section gets a refit for the next movie. One can only hope!!

45. Captain Kark - May 1, 2013

@33 The Mighty Chip

The only other episode that comes to mind is ‘In a mirror, darkly, part 2′

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/In_a_Mirror,_Darkly,_Part_II_(episode)

when Evil Archer flattens the Gorn on the TOS era Constitution, Defiant.

Hey, perhaps the inertial dampeners and the artificial gravity are playing havoc with each other causing an upside down in space etc etc! :)

46. Paul Carey - May 1, 2013

These guys are such wimps; yelling and screaming like girls! you wouldn’t have heard Shatner and Doohan making such a fuss! JJ couldn’t organize a warp core breach in a brewery…

47. Charla - May 1, 2013

T- Totally awesome!! I love the physics of this clip too. It is remniscent of one of my other favorite movies, Inception. And that’s ok, I am sure there will be plenty of explaining for you nay-sayers on the blu-ray edition in time!

Until then, might I suggest that everyone just enjoy the ride? :)

This looks like a truly epic film- can’t wait to see it!!

48. Phil - May 1, 2013

How about that, no sooner mention the lab, and Yahoo movies does a piece on it…

http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/star-trek-boldly-goes-unlikely-real-life-locations-153158175.html

49. I am not Herbert - May 1, 2013

Red Dead Ryan:

PLEASE don’t try to make excuses for bad physics…

it’s embarrassing to watch…

50. Rich Civil - May 1, 2013

@ 24

We don’t know how the ship is moving here but a few things.

- artificial gravity not working or working sporadically , likely due to battle/ damage

- by the laws of physics if the ship is either not moving or moving at a constant speed people just float ( see ISS or ST IV)

- Again physics if the ship is accelerating with artificial gravity not working (or not working well) you get falling out of chairs and running on the walls. This is the same effect when you accelerate hard in your car and you feel pushed back into your seat.

51. jesustrek - May 1, 2013

No words Woooowww

52. Ryan - May 1, 2013

It looks like the ship is losing its warp field at the very beginning.

53. THK - May 1, 2013

@35

Totally, and now we can notice the arrangement of warp reactors (I believe it’s 3 or maybe 4 reactors both port and starboard). I can accept the huge tanks, but if there only was less piping and catwalks.

54. Undiscovered Gay Trek Character - May 1, 2013

Reminds me of Galaxy Quest. Jump! (sigh).

55. drumvan - May 1, 2013

so scotty can’t hang on with two hands but kirk can hang on with one? riiiiiight. wasn’t as impressed with this clip as the other recent ones. looked pretty cliche’.

56. Jimbo - May 1, 2013

I can live with the mega brewery set, even if it does defy all sorts of safety standards in a ship that can apparantly have gravity failure.

What I find difficult to accept is Scotty referring to his Captain as ‘Jim’. In TOS, only Bones and Spock called Kirk by his first name out of the crew IIRC, everyone else referred to him as ‘Captain’. Just didn’t sound right having that level of informality from Scotty.

(Imagine ‘Jim, he’s dead already’ rather than Sir, he’s dead already’)

57. smike - May 1, 2013

The only thing a hate about the new movies is that Budgeneering. It HAS TO GO for the next one.

And why does that Deltan sound like V’Gers Probe? Nope, Deltans don’t sound mechanic per se… Ilia only did AFTER being recreated by V’Ger!

Bad physics? Don’t care at all… as long as they get the engineering right for the third one and/or any potential series set in the new timeline…

58. Ryan - May 1, 2013

Gawd people. If you dislike the movie that’s fine but quit trying to yank us into your pit of sanctimonious hate.

59. Captain Kark - May 1, 2013

@55 drumvan

It’s all the engineer’s grease on his hands I tell you! :)

60. Phil - May 1, 2013

Artificial gravity has been a presumed staple in Trek for a while now, but it’s design and function has been very vague, and with good reason.

Nah, on repeated viewings, this scene is a physics clusterf**k, too. From what we have seen so for, it should fit right in with the rest of the movie. Lets not dwell on that, and enjoy the show….

61. smike - May 1, 2013

@14: Uhura has got short sleeveless as well…I’d prefer sleeveless instead of cap sleeves though :-)

62. HubcapDave - May 1, 2013

#55

Well, considering Kirk has seen the inside of a gym a few more times that Scotty has……..

63. Ran - May 1, 2013

@ 56

The only time Scotty called Kirk “Jim” was in “Mirror, Mirror”.

64. Kapten Kerk - May 1, 2013

Love the action scene(s)!
HATE the engineering.

65. Michael Towns - May 1, 2013

None of you people know how to do real physics. So stop complaining.

66. spock - May 1, 2013

Still don’t like this version of Engineering, but the clip looks exciting. I wonder what hit the Enterprise, or what is it caught up in.

67. Daniel Broadway - May 1, 2013

Oh, look. It’s happening again.

Trekkies Bash New Star Trek film as “Fun, Watchable”

68. Daniel Broadway - May 1, 2013

Oh, look. It’s happening again.

Trekkies Bash New Star Trek film as “Fun, Watchable”

http://www.theonion.com/video/trekkies-bash-new-star-trek-film-as-fun-watchable,14333/

69. Robman007 - May 1, 2013

@55…go watch the Scotty character profile. Even Simon Pegg mentions that Scotty never refers to Jim as Jim. Always calls him Captain except one or two instance, just like in TOS.

As for the physics, I could care less. Won’t ruin my enjoyment in much the same way that “cross cuircuiting to B” or ” 1 to the 4th power” didnt bother me while watching TOS.

70. Red Dead Ryan - May 1, 2013

The artificial gravity is still working, as we see the crew still attached to the floors and walls of the ship. We don’t see any floating going on. The inertia dampers, on the other hand, are probably shot.

I am assuming that is the beginning of the scene featuring Enterprise descending into the atmosphere. The Enterprise is seen going through turbulance at the beginning of the clip.

71. Robman007 - May 1, 2013

@68…funny, but some of these guys bring that level of mockery on them selves by acting the way they do (aka butthurt)…sad but true

72. LongIslandTrekster - May 1, 2013

These short clips of the new film are like crack for Star Trek fans.

If you can resist them your not human!

73. Captain Kark - May 1, 2013

I’m only larking about with the physics thing :) It’s called ‘science fiction’ for a reason and to criticise a film like this for employing bad physics but being OK with things travelling faster that the speed of light or being able to recreate the gravitational pull of something with the mass of a planet in a thin piece of ‘future metal’ does seem a little bit harsh :D

74. Robman007 - May 1, 2013

@66

The Enterprise was hit with a big giant can of whup ass

75. Chris - May 1, 2013

Ich kann mir nicht helfen.
Aber irgendwie, fühle ich mich -als Scotty und Kirk da am Geländer hängen- doch stark an “Titanic” erinnert.

76. spock - May 1, 2013

Im so glad they took Star Trek back to the fun of the original series. The self important pretentious BS, and technobabble just to have was killing the stories.

77. Pat Payne - May 1, 2013

To the tune of “The Chipmunk

Star Trek, Star Trek time is near
Time for Kirk and pointed ears

We’ve sat tight, but we can’t last,
Hurry Star Trek, hurry fast

Klingons adorned with golden hoops
Big E goes through loop-de-loops… (Alvin!!!)

We can hardly stand the wait
Please Star Trek don’t be late…

78. Pat Payne - May 1, 2013

*To the tune of The Chipmunk Christmas song, is what I meant :)

79. Robman007 - May 1, 2013

@75 word. Trek needed some fun. The last film was fun. This looks fun.

80. Copper Based Blood - May 1, 2013

Star Trek 2009 had Kirk hanging on a edge 3 times. I wonder how many times JJ has the cast hanging from an edge in the new movie?

Kirk & Scotty hanging in the “Bud” room = 1
Spock hanging from the barge ship = 2

81. Pat Payne - May 1, 2013

@74 Ja, ein bischen so wie “Titanic”…

82. HubcapDave - May 1, 2013

I agree that this scene does not line up with how physics works…..but people forget that starships have systems which influence these same physical laws in order to allow for human spaceflight in the first place.

I would speculate that a ship falling toward a planet with artificial gravity either out or malfunctioning, but the inertial dampening system still working could plausibly account for what we see in this clip.

Even if it doesn’t, I don’t give a hoot, this was a pretty cool scene, and I go to movies to be entertained, not to learn about science.

83. USSEXETER - May 1, 2013

In the TOS episode “Mirror Mirror” Scotty calles Kirk Jim when Scotty offers to stay behind in the transporter room. That’s the only time I can think of.

84. Copper Based Blood - May 1, 2013

#79 continued

oh I forgot:-

Hanging in the upturned corridor = 3

85. bmar - May 1, 2013

When does Gene Hackman sacrifice himself to save the others?

(anyone? anyone?)

86. sean - May 1, 2013

Ha! Star Trek has always employed questionable physics, how silly to complain about it now just because you don’t like the new folks involved. We’ve never understood how the artificial gravity in Trek works, and I doubt we ever will. Stop projecting and go watch something you actually enjoy.

87. smike - May 1, 2013

@76: Funny. You know, what I’ve always got in mind when I listen to the new theme tune “Enterprising Young Men”: It would actually fit with a text:

“Starship Enterpriiiiise, Starship Enterpriiiiiiiiiiise, warps away at warp 4…”

It’s a bit like John Williams’ old Superman theme in which I could always imagine the words “Superman” LOL

88. Hubcap Dave - May 1, 2013

#86

Exactly! “The Next Phase”, for instance?

89. jonboc - May 1, 2013

#41. “if it was just the brewery… maybe…

but the whole package of writing/directing/designing is unacceptably diminishing the TRUE VISION of Star Trek =(

…but glad that you, and apparently so many others, are “impressed”…”

Looks like someone needs to call I Am Not Herbert a waaaaambulance! lol

90. Groeneinkt - May 1, 2013

Not sure if this has been mentioned before, but the Enterprise isn’t the first space vessel to have an engine room looking somewhat like a brewery. The original V miniseries (you know, the one with aliens in giant flying saucers who secretly are rodent eating lizards), had a brief shot of a very similar looking brewery that was supposed to represent their space ship’s engines.

91. Harry Ballz - May 1, 2013

@85 bmar “When does Gene Hackman sacrifice himself to save the others?”

In The Poseidon Adventure (original version).

ooooh, ooooh! what did I win??

92. Red Dead Ryan - May 1, 2013

I don’t think we can criticize the writers for coming up with “bad physics” since we don’t currently have starships equipped with warp drive, transporters, artificial gravity and inertia dampeners. We can only estimate to the best of our current abilities how these things would/wouldn’t function under the best/worst situations.

It could be what we see in the clips are depicted correctly, or not correctly at all. Or somewhere in-between.

And we still haven’t seen the whole movie, either.

93. Keachick - May 1, 2013

It is not made clear how Kirk and Scotty met in the prime universe, but we do know how it happened in this one. I think this is what allows for greater informality between Kirk and Scotty.

Great scenes. TOS also had running and jumping. Thinking and talking, running and jumping in this movie. Sounds/looks good to me.

94. dscott - May 1, 2013

Keep in mind we have no idea why the artifitial gravity has gone haywire – it could be as simple as it’s completely gone and centrifugal force from the flat spin the ship is in is the reason they are all over the place Don’t dismiss the scene until you know what is happening :)

95. creed - May 1, 2013

People whining about the real physics of artificial gravity that does not exist on a starship capable of going faster than light which is impossible. are you guys for real?

96. cloudynow - May 1, 2013

i want it. i want it now!

97. bmar - May 1, 2013

91. Harry – you win a trip on the Enterprise. Bring your gravity boots. ;)

Now if Captain Kirk swims through an upside down beer vat, and comes out the other side, only to have a heart attack and die…THEN we’d have a real movie.

98. Cant Wait Fer ST:ID - May 1, 2013

Of course Kirk has super-powers; his daddy was Thor.

Don’t like the seatbelts. They look fake, as in just part of the uniform and not really attached to anything. I’m NOT GOING!!!!! (not)

99. Cant Wait Fer ST:ID - May 1, 2013

@82 Ahhh. I finally find a kindred spirit on this blog.

@all the Sheldon Leonards – Shuh Tup!!!!

100. Picard, Jean-Luc - May 1, 2013

er, can’t say I see anything wrong with the physics of that scene, the ship’s falling out of space into Earth and if it was out of control then yes the ship would lurch all over the place causing the people within the ship to fly all over the ship, like if you were onboard a plane that was nose-diving into the ground, you’d be thrown about… Unless you were wearing seat belts.

Oh and AWESOME AWESOME AWESOME SCENE!!!! ONE WEEK TOMORROW for us in the UK!!!!!!

101. Nexarc - May 1, 2013

Watching it I noticed one nacelle lit (at warp?) and one not and the warp-wisp effects from the last movie. It looks to me that either they were attempting to enter or are dropping out of warp. Considering bad enough damage to a semi-powered nacelle somehow screws up the gravity and inertial systems from TNG Cause and Effect, I think we are seeing something similar here, probably exaggerated with the major hull damage you can see and active warp coils.

Maybe not real-world physics, but consistent with trek-physics.

102. Assistant Heisenberg Compensator - May 1, 2013

Do the Trek writers really think that the gherkin building in London is really going to be around in two hundred years time? :-)

103. Kev - May 1, 2013

Okay props for the seatbelts, I mean they did have some sort of seat lockin thing for TMP and TWOK so it makes sense that it would have seatbelts

always figured hip based though judging by how many times the consoles blow though lol

104. gingerly - May 1, 2013

@82

THIS.

It’s like counting the petals of a particular gorgeous flower and finding the resulting number off and then obsessing about that.

THE FLOWER IS PRETTY ENJOY IT.

105. Federali Aundy - May 1, 2013

The only thing that could make this seen any better would be to have Keenser fly by them, falling to his ultimate red shirt death.

106. Cameron - May 1, 2013

Ah man, what a bummer – they kept the brewery!

107. NCC-73515 - May 1, 2013

Told you guys about the seatbelts months ago. They were mentioned on a screen in the same video that had the sound files including ‘April Giant Gun’. The text however told the recipient to remove the seatbelts, IIRC.

108. Leonard Hofstader - May 1, 2013

How can we really be having a debate about HOW the artificial gravity works? It doesn’t. bloody. exist. Please stop whining and go back to playing Klingon Boggle.

109. Blake Powers - May 1, 2013

SEAT BELTS!

110. Kelila - May 1, 2013

HOLY HNAEV, SEATBELTS. This is revolutionary!!!

111. Davenetsoo - May 1, 2013

I have never heard a bigger bunch of winers and complainers in my life!!! Don’t like the action go watch Fast & Furious 69 or is it 70, now that’s originality and realism!!!

112. Mantastic - May 1, 2013

Physics shmysiscs. We’ve got ‘sposions and boomedy boom kerplooies! That’s all we need!

I think I’m going to watch that clip again and kill some more brain cells.

113. J - May 1, 2013

111: yawn.

114. Tiberius Subprime - May 1, 2013

@102
God, I hope not.

115. MC1 Doug - May 1, 2013

Oh. Goodie, The brewery set is back. gag.

116. Mad Mann - May 1, 2013

So THAT’s why the corridors are rounded out! That makes a lot of sense now!

117. DB - May 1, 2013

Oh great. The plaster on the wall is cracking again. El Sleaze O’s discount construction strikes again.
NO! Not the beer!

118. Silvereyes - May 1, 2013

If JJ wanted a large Engineering section, he could have used a large soundstage + CGI and/or matte paintings. The brewery set just-looks-clunky!

119. Steve Johnson - May 1, 2013

@creed

FTL is not actually something we yet know whether it’s impossible or not. There are some theories on how to cheat relativity. The reason we cannot actually test those theories are limiting facts. Not enough power, the engineering required is not there yet.

I have no idea why anyone has issue with people flying about when the ship is hurtling towards a planet at incredibly velocities with the artificial gravity either completely gone or malfunctioning. There’s nothing wrong with it. In fact, it looks like there’s a lot of fun to be had in this film.

120. Silvereyes - May 1, 2013

# 75 Chris

Je ne comprends pas pourquoi vous vous obstinez à écrire dans un langage que probablement moins que 1% ici peuvent lire… C’est ridicule! :)

121. Silvereyes - May 1, 2013

To all those who presume to know enough to criticize how this or that violates physics, stop it immediately. Nobody knows enough about it to emit an opinion, for or against, as the science doesn’t exist yet.

This self-righteous know-it-all rhetoric is why normal people despise Trekkies.

122. Spock's Bangs - May 1, 2013

I love seat restraints, loved them in trek 1 & 2, but why have belts on chairs that aren’t affixed to the floor? The red chairs on the bridge appear to just be individual chairs sitting about not unlike the chairs in TOS. Not sure seat belts are going to do a lot of good on those.

123. Kinoo - May 1, 2013

That engine room could benefit from having a corridor of Stomper-Chompers installed.

124. creed - May 1, 2013

Steve, as it stands, FTL is impossible. Theories do mean something is true- even the best ‘theory’ on FTL requires the use of ‘exotic matter’ – something that we have never observed or prove to exist, until such a time, it is impossible- once there is a drop of evidence that shows otherwise, I’ll relent.

125. gatetrek - May 1, 2013

Well, at least in this universe they are smart enough to add seatbelts on the bridge before the 24th century.

And I’m sure he’ll be fine, but seeing Captain Kirk climbing precariously on a metal bridge doesn’t exactly bring great feelings to mind…

126. BatlethInTheGroin - May 1, 2013

#56: There were several times during TOS when Scotty called Kirk “Jim,” actually.

127. inb4 someone claims I can't deal with change - May 1, 2013

Ah, I see we’re not getting another Star Trek film. Looking forward to Space Action Adventure Movie #2 though.

128. Phil - May 1, 2013

Gravity and Inertial Dampeners would be life support systems that are mission critical. Like the computer core, failure of either of these, particularly at sub light velocity, would be instantly fatal to the crew. I’d expect segregated power and command/control for these vital systems to keep them running in the event of main power failure….

Just sayin…

129. Captain, USS Northstar - May 1, 2013

@ 58, 65 and 67:

Thank you!

@42: So where was all that “thinking and talking” in TOS when Kirk was rolling in the dirt, drop-kicking and punching?

No matter what people say, TOS was not always cerebral. While it was high-minded in places, it was a Sci-FI action/adventure television show.

Enjoy the movie — just a couple of weeks now!

130. smegger56 - May 1, 2013

I”M LOVING IT.

Thursday 9th May can’t come soon enough. Trek is exciting and fun again.

131. sisko - May 1, 2013

Holy carp! The return of the Deltans! Nice!

And a few more “!” just because. “!!!!!!”

And yes, while Budgineering sucks (most of the set design for nuTrek sucks), I’m sure the movie is going to be as awesome as the previous one or better.

132. Brevard - May 1, 2013

After a hard day on the Enterprise, I like to kick back with a Bud. Meet you in Budgineering.

133. Chris Pike - May 1, 2013

fantastic clip, big action and suspense…brewery is BIG fail for me, suddenly I’m back on 20th century earth after spinning through space with the gravity field on the ceiling…biggest mistake they made on nu Trek for me, just does not work at all!

134. Anonymous Coward - May 1, 2013

# 41 + # 127, At least someone understands what’s going on here.

135. I-Chaya - May 1, 2013

Seatbelts…. Fascinating…..

136. TrekMadeMeWonder - May 1, 2013

Why would anyone make this?

P-f-f-f-t.

Now, I am really looking forward to Iron-Man.

Star Trek will be back someday long from now.

137. JibberX - May 1, 2013

Just noticed Scotty has a ring on his finger, this feels super significant considering the previous Harrion statement about 70 something other people…. Scotty must be one of them, uniform, other ship all that jazz.

138. Red Dead Ryan - May 1, 2013

#124.

Faster-than-light travel is “impossible” only because we haven’t tried. And we haven’t tried because we don’t have the adequate technology to do so.

Albert Einstein came up with his theory of relativity to explain why FTL travel is impossible. Since we currently don’t have the tech or know how to create a warp engine, the theory stands, although some scientists believe that some forms of radiation may be able to travel faster than light.*

The thing is, we don’t know if something will work unless we try. But we do know that if we don’t try, then it is impossible.

*I can’t remember if those theories were disproven. I seem to recall an experiment recently that, early on, suggested the possibility only to be debunked later on.

139. Daniel Broadway - May 1, 2013

@ 137 JibberX

That’s a Starfleet academy ring, and Scotty’s uniform is a flight suit.

140. ironhyde - May 1, 2013

Besides the lame seat belts and the ugly engineering location, etc etc, I really honestly felt something when Scotty said “I can’t.” :( That’s enough for me to appreciate this clip. I have never liked Kirk more than when he caught Scotty there.

141. ironhyde - May 1, 2013

nuKirk, that is.

142. John Harrison Singh - May 1, 2013

Is the Enterprise in freefall? Wouldn’t that just result in weightlessness, thus no change? The characters should not be able to walk, even if the ship is spinning fast enough to create centrifugal force. The only gravity plates should be in the floor.
For logic’s sake I hope it’s just the inertial dampers gone haywire!

143. K-7 - May 1, 2013

The only reason I can see the need for the seatbelts, is that the E must get rocked and rolled so hard in this movie, that the scene would not have looked credible with people flying over the bridge when the Vengence knocked the crap out of the E.

144. Bob - May 1, 2013

Sorry, I don’t mean to be THAT guy – but one thing that we all need to remember is: the starship Enterprise isn’t real. It’s not in space and we have no idea what the physics of artificial gravity are as that technology doesn’t yet exist. Arguing over it seems a bit silly.

I love Trek. Have since I was a kid. Even did an acting gig on “Trials and Tribble-ations” back in 1996. In real life, the Enterprise was a model (and is now not real at all… it’s pixels in a computer) and the sets are plywood, nails, lights, paint and set decorations. When I was a teenager I used to get all heated about things like – how fast can the ship go? How many decks does it have? How many phaser banks does it have and all that minutiae until I was Andorian, er, blue in the face. But as I got older I realized that specifying details like that really pulled me out of the stories that they were trying to tell. I got bogged down by “hey, they can’t do that! They established that last week!” The writers need to stop being that specific and we fans need to stop just as much.

That’s why I loved Galactica. The SciFi elements were completely secondary. And it should be that way with Trek. too. Enjoy it for what it is. A good story. (Hopefully)

14 days and counting…

145. Vorus - May 1, 2013

This is EASILY the most cringe-worthy thing I’ve seen in the Abramsverse. Stupid, and I mean STUPID writing and direction here. The artificial gravity can keep the crew in place during FAR worse things than falling toward Earth. (One example is the BoP in ST:IV, or the 1701 in “Tomorrow is Yesterday” both of which went within spitting distance of a star without having the crew getting pulled away from artificial gravity and toward the star.

And, even if the artificial gravity was off, that STILL wouldn’t make this scene work. They’re falling toward EARTH. That means, the ship is falling at 1g, TOWARD a 1g “gravity field” for lack of a better word. The crew would be in freefall inside the ship, not plastered to the sides of walls. (See the “Vomit Comet” plane.)

And lastly, we know from the scene itself that the artificial gravity has not failed, because we see some poor guy get thrown down a hallway as Kirk and Scotty run past. In other words, there are TWO DISTINCT forces acting upon the crew. One that holds Kirk and Scotty to the wall, and one that threw the crewman around. Only 1 maximum of 1 of those forces could be natural gravity, the other has to be artificial gravity.

And don’t try to say that the artificial gravity system is somehow “screwed up” and causing the problems. That’s not how it works. There is gravity plating on the deck floor. It can only pull in one direction, or not at all. The plating can’t magically move to the walls. And if it did, it wouldn’t be powered. (See here: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Gravity_plate )

This means that Orci and Company believe that artificial gravity works by holding the crew “down”, but not “down” relative to the ship’s floor, “down” relative to some imaginary definition, which allows the crew to be pulled toward the walls as the ship rolls. That’s 1) VERY stupid writing and starship design, and 2) NOT HOW GRAVITY WORKS ON STARSHIPS. We’ve seen ships roll many times with no such effects.

Obviously, artificial gravity holds the crew to the floor, regardless of the ship’s orientation.

Except in this one scene. Because JJ.

Stupid. Orci, you should be ashamed of yourself. Very, very ashamed.

146. Shawn Richards - May 1, 2013

@42 – “Trek was always about people thinking and talking.”

Nobody is paying $15 to go an Imax 3D movie featuring “thinking and talking”

147. grumpyoldman - May 1, 2013

Engineering reminds me of Axis Chemicals in Batman. Was that a water heater that almost hit them?

148. USSEXETER - May 1, 2013

@126 >Nope just the one time only in “Mirror, Mirror”.

149. Phil - May 1, 2013

Yeah, those FTL particle stories tend to pop up in the mass media from time to time, and when tested, they don’t pass muster. Whenever science tests relativity, it stands up.

Newtonian physics is great for the physical world, and it grinds down to motion and energy. Build a better construct, and the faster you go. The problem is, Newton doesn’t work so well the closer you get to the speed of light, because to get past that barrier, you are having to do it at the quantum level. Right now, the numbers don’t add up, there isn’t enough energy in the universe to do it, and no one has a clue how to build a machine that will compress space around you. The rules are a bit different, and it’s not just a question of building a better spaceship. Think of it this way – Ford was nice enough to build me a truck, so if I want to go to Vegas, I hop in, fuel it up, expend some energy, and move through space to get to Sin City in about three hours. At the quantum level, I hop in my warp field chamber, enter the Vegas coordinates, and the fabric of space warps around me to deliver me at my destination. Sci-fi describes the concept, and does a good job of it at times. Actually building the machine is a bit more problematic…

150. trekmaster78 - May 1, 2013

Hey, Prime Universe invented seat belts in “Star Trek: Nemesis”! ;-)

151. Basement Blogger - May 1, 2013

I like this clip. it’s exciting.

152. It's a TV show! - May 1, 2013

Not gonna name names… But someone needs to get laid…

153. Keachick - May 1, 2013

When the ships have been rolling etc, they have not been within a planet’s atmosphere where external gravity will be exerting pressure on the ship, so your example is not correct. Nothing is pulling the people towards the walls. The people are unable to maintain their balance and are falling into the walls. Obviously something has damaged some of the major ship’s systems. What exactly?

Go see the movie…

154. Robman007 - May 1, 2013

It’s funny all the folks crying and whining over a gravity malfunction on the Enterprise..especially when it’s happened before!!

Yes, folks. If you stop with the hurt feelings behavior you’ll realize that a Klingon Battlecruiser was hit by 2 photons at point blank range and it caused a malfunction in the ships gravity generator, which in turn led to two members of Starfleet beaming aboard said ship and the assassination of the head of the Klingon High Council.

Yes, this happened in Star Trek VI, folks. So, yes, a starship can suffer enough battle damage to cause a malfunction in the gravity generators (as well as inertial dampeners, which can do anything because they are, get this, FICTIONAL… causing such issues as we are seeing in this film)

Just image if JJ had did Star Trek VI….the trek nitpick nazi’s would be out in full force burning effigies of JJ Abrams because he dared to show a Klingon ship fire while cloaked, dared to show a ship in the 23rd century lose gravity..or even worse if he did First Contact and showed the Borg with a queen…or even more burning if he showed the Enterprise being controlled by a joy stick in Insurrection….oh the horror….burn that effigy of JJ Abrams..how dare him do this to our beloved Star Trek! Only Berman and Bragga can do that to our show…how DARE the original series bring Captain Kirk back to life from a transporter malfunction by having Mr Spock do the unrealistic “cross circuiting to B” routine…oh the horror!!!!

155. Phil - May 1, 2013

@152. The physics was wrong there, too…

156. Dunsel Report - May 1, 2013

How about when the guy who debated Stephen Douglas showed up floating in outer space, or when the Enterprise got chased by a planet, held over a voodoo candle, or molested by a giant hand?

157. Vorus - May 1, 2013

@152

Yes, gravity malfunctions happen. And what did it cause? People FLOATING AROUND, just like it should have. There is no malfunction that can cause the effects this clip shows. Only stupid writing and/or direction.

That’s what we’re complaining about, a clear and obvious lack of thought put into the details of the film. If you don’t care about those things, that’s fine with me. But I do. Guess what, we’re different people, we can have differing opinions. I like the tech in my SciFi films to be consistent and make sense. This clip shows that the current people in charge have no desire to make sense, and I don’t like that. If you can’t handle the fact that I can have my own opinions, that’s not my problem.

158. Flake - May 1, 2013

JJ Abrams was just on BBC News @ 10 discussing Star Trek and Star Wars… parts of the trailer played throughout – Good free advertising by the BBC there :) Trek was also featured on the BBC website today highlighting that the UK critics are giving it good reviews.

I am only seeing reviews of 4 out of 5 stars. Very Consistent.

As for physics (I am not watching the clip) I assume you are referring to the part of the movie where they lose artificial gravity whilst tumbling through the atmosphere of a planet? Don’t see the problem with that.

159. Vorus - May 1, 2013

@ 150

Coward. If you’re going to say something, say it.

160. Flake - May 1, 2013

ALSO

If gravity is lost and the ship is rotating, does that not generate some gravity? Like those rotating space stations?

161. AyanEva - May 1, 2013

GAH! Why did it stop right there??!! I was on the edge of my seat by the end!

162. Commodore Shaggy - May 1, 2013

@68 Hit the nail on the head. We should also share the theme song of Mystery Science Theater 3000:

…”if you’re wondering how he eats and breathes, and other science facts, just repeat to yourself ‘It’s just a show, I should really just relax”.

Don’t get me wrong, I love Trek and have got into some geeky debates over stuff that doesn’t actually exist from the show too. But passing on the movie because they are putting running, jumping, railing holds, base jumping, etc., give me a break. If it was nothing but people standing around discussing a giant battle that was going to probably happen then we would be watching Twilight.

163. K-7 - May 1, 2013

@155 “Yes, gravity malfunctions happen. And what did it cause? People FLOATING AROUND, just like it should have. There is no malfunction that can cause the effects this clip shows. Only stupid writing and/or direction.”

Oh, grow the F up, would you?

Star Trek, since the original series has almost never treated the ships physical movement versus people moving inside the ship in a reasonably explainable scientific way. This is nothing new. Your argument is dead on arrival, as this has always been a problem with Star Trek from Day 1.

And spare us all your lame name-calling of labeling people “cowards”, you ineffective, irrelevant bully.

164. Vorus - May 1, 2013

@158

Not really. You don’t “generate” gravity by spinning. You generate centripetal force, tho walls of the station push back on you, as your body tries to push through them, more or less. This gives you the ILLUSION of gravity.

However, this is not what is happening here, because the ship would have to be spinning at about 1g, to make the “gravity” feel like Earth normal, or close enough to it that we can’t visually tell a difference. The ship simply isn’t spinning that fast, if at all.

Also, that would have to mean that the artificial gravity was out. Which, again, if it was, then the crew would be subject to the normal laws of physics, and since the ship is in freefall toward earth, the would be experiencing more or less micro-gravity, similar to what the astronauts feel.

165. Ro-Gar The Barbarian - May 1, 2013

Actually, I don’t think she’s a Deltan. Stopping and looking at the frame, you can see stubble on her head. Deltans, I believe, are hairless.

166. Vorus - May 1, 2013

@ 161

Think what you like, I really don’t care. But I was not tho one complaining about other people’s opinions. I was simply stating my own. I think the people who need to grow up are the ones that can’t handle it when someone has an opinion different than their own.

I don’t mind if everyone else loves the scene, and thinks it’s fantastic. But I hate it. That’s MY opinion. I’m fine with your opinion, even though I disagree with it, but you attack me because of mine. Which one of us do you think seems more mature?

167. Vorus - May 1, 2013

@161

And I’d call someone a coward when they hide behind a throwaway account and blanket-insult people. I think that’s a pretty rational definition of coward.

168. Flake - May 1, 2013

162: Ok I understand what you are saying. Now tell me the percentage of people in the movie theatre that will get pissed off at the physics fail during this sequence?

They aren’t going to leave the movie and call up a paper on physics and gravity to establish that the sequence was impossible, they are more likely to come out commenting that they enjoyed that sequence because it was entertaining.

It is a movie afterall.

169. CanOpener1256 - May 1, 2013

I pretty sure I saw a keg of bud fall by …. Right pass the lights that hang on a chain which are not moving. Amazing!

Has anyone ever considered that Trek fans, even new ones, like attention to detail? Even in a make believe universe, some laws should apply and they should be seen in such detail! Here we see all scifi logic thrown out for another, “wouldn’t it be cool if …” Moment we see in so many scifi pictures .

170. Vorus - May 1, 2013

@168

I agree. Most people won’t even notice anything wrong, because it “looks right” to them to see a ship falling, and people getting flung against the walls. That’s fine, that’s what you expect in a summer action flick.

I just miss the days when the scince and tech is Star Trek was above that of summer action flicks. Back when they used to print 150 page tech manuals and official ship blueprints, all of which showed that the crew and writers put a lot of thought into HOW and WHY their universe worked the way it did.

JJ-Trek is just all about “what looks cool”, and it’s clear that no one in charge now has taken the time to really think about what actually makes sense. And that makes me miss the old Trek even more.

171. Red Dead Ryan - May 1, 2013

The fact is, the ship is clearly falling into the atmosphere. Regardless of artificial gravity, the planet’s gravity would cause the ship’s inhabitants to fall in the same direction as the ship itself.

We also know that the artificial gravity is working because we see Kirk and Scotty run along the floor during portions of the clip.

The fact that Kirk and Scotty are running along the walls has to do with how the ship is oriented during its freefall/descent. The planet’s gravity is playing a big factor in all of this.

And yes, this wouldn’t be possible if the ship was merely travelling through space. It wouldn’t matter anyway, because space doesn’t exert gravity. That’s why (with artificial gravity and inertia dampeners, of course) you can have the Defiant do barrel rolls while battling the Lakota without anyone being tossed around like ragdolls inside the ship.

172. Robman007 - May 1, 2013

@152..exactly. It was a plot device. Nobody burned effigies of Leonard Nimoy or Nick Meyers. It’s concidered a classic film.

@155..my point is…ALL Star Trek plays it loose with “real” physics. It’s all fictional. Fictional, as in not real. Science Fiction is just a bogus name given to a set of fictional stories to try and give it some respectablity. It’s no different then the Wizard of Oz. Fictional. The technology has always been there to further the plot. Happened all the time on TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, all 12 Movies….

Explain to me the realism in having the flag ship of the Federation controlled by a joy stick? What’s real about that? Happened in a Star Trek production that was NOT JJ Abrams.

Are you disqusted when Kirk uses a heart beat sensor to pick up signals at a level of “1 to the 4th power”?

Technology and it’s use, even physics, are used in a Trek production to further a plot. Non of it is real. Warp Drive won’t happen as much as we want it to happen, not unless they can figure out just how in the hell to create a deflector dish that some how keeps that microscopic speck of space dust from cutting a hole in a ship from one end to the next while your ship travels at the speed of light….or how Transporters are real..they are plot devices.

I’ll even go so far as Voyager. You had a federation starship in a unique part of the galaxy that managed to come back in one piece. No, should not have happened, but the plot made it that way. That vessel would have been in just as terrible condition as the Galactica was when it found ancient earth, which was terrible enough as it was…

I respect that you want some realism in your sci-fi. Whatever works. I don’t give three pints of piss because it’s fictional. It’s Star Trek. I’m glad that it didn’t die a horrible death like it was after the last group got finished with it. I can live with “unrealistic physics” because it’s fictional, and because it’s just damn cool to see some adventures of Kirk and Spock again. I can live with the characters being different because i DONT WANT them to be carbon copies of TOS characters. I can live with it being fast paced with lots of action and light on the technobabble and cramming a PC message down my throat….

My brother is an actor in hollywood and while going around for audtions noticed massive sized billboards and ads for this film. FINALLY Star Trek is getting a level of respect and recongnition from the general audience BECAUSE of these Films.

That’s a good thing, my friends. These films are a great door way for folks who didn’t want to check into Star Trek because the other films were too boring and took themselves way too serious. Now they watch this, love it and then decide to pick up the lovely blu-ray copies of TOS and TNG, and blamo, new fans. THATS a good thing….besides, I’m just glad Star Trek is back..and by back for me I mean the Voyages of the Starship Enterprise, with Captain Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, Uhura, Sulu and Chekov..that works for me and to hell with reality.

173. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - May 1, 2013

@148. trekmaster78
Hey, Prime Universe invented seat belts in “Star Trek: Nemesis”! ;-)

So, that means the Alternative universe is more progressive since they got them 120 years earlier. I wonder if the Narada incursion had anything to do with it…

Eek! Now, I doing what I’ve been seething about some of the rest of you doing as I read this thread. Lighten up people and open yourselves to the possibility of enjoying this movie.

I found the clip exciting. I can’t wait for this movie (7 days to go for me!!!) I expect to enjoy it. I want to enjoy it. I’ll obsessively dissect it later. And if JJ Abrams and company have done the job it is looking like they’ve done, so far, I will find that I still enjoy it – warts and all – after I’ve obsessively dissected it.

174. Vorus - May 1, 2013

@172

Personally, yes, I was annoyed every time Trek made a similar mistake. 1 to the 4th decibels included. But I think you’d have to admit that in general, TV Trek payed a LOT more attention to details than JJ-Trek has so far. This scene is just one more example of how Trek is getting further and further sold out to the “coolness factor”. Some of us liked it better when Trek wasn’t as cool, because it was overall better quality.

175. Robman007 - May 1, 2013

@171….nobody will listen to you because it’s a JJ Abrams production. If it was a Berman or even Nimoy production, nobody would question these scenes..

Funny how folks can label these films as “not my Star Trek”..yet one of the biggest supporters about the integrity of the shows decided to come out of retirment once and potentially twice to be in these films because he believed that they captured what the original was all about and has nothing but good things to say about the films….hmm.

176. Superquerulant - May 1, 2013

Poor redshirt at 0.10 … but it was his destiny…

177. Trek Tech - May 1, 2013

BS Physics, the brewery and Kirk once again hanging off a ledge all covered up in shaky cam, loud music and lens flare. I guess JJ has found the formula to keep the easily entertained forking over their money. I keep checking back here hoping beyond hope I will see something that I like and Im greeted with Tie Fighter Klingon ships and lots of running around. The ONLY thing Ive seen that Ive liked so far is the Klingons themselves. Very sad that the Trek I grew I up with has turned in to this and that there are actually people who like it. Doest mean they are wrong for liking it but it tells me that the Trek I loved has been replaced by Michael Bayish style over substance CGI nonsense. I still have my Netflix I guess. This movie isnt getting my money.

178. Vorus - May 1, 2013

@173

Complaints don’t mean that we can’t enjoy it. I complained vociferously about many things in ST Enterprise, but overall enjoyed it. But by the same token, enjoyment of Trek doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be allowed to complain about the parts of it we don’t like, or find annoying.

Many of you, mostly the more venomous, seem to think that some of us are crying doom and gloom over one scene we don’t like. Personally, I can tell you that I’m making no such complaint. I’m complaining about something that looks stupid, and doesn’t fit with the laws of physics, real or as we know them in Trek. That’s ALL. I’m not saying this destroys the film, or planning to boycott it because of this scene. I’m just making one complaint. Yes, it’,s a big complaint, over a pretty big stupid mistake, but it’s just ONE complaint.

Many people did the same about VOY: “Threshold” and ENT: “Regeneration”. People are going to complain when the people in charge do things they find stupid. It’s not a big deal. People complaining ABOUT the complaints are making it a bigger deal than it is to those making the original complaints.

179. Superquerulant - May 1, 2013

@ 177: Sorry… but when I watched VOY ENT “Insurrection” and “Nemesis” I felt “very sad” about what Trek had turned into…

180. K-7 - May 1, 2013

“nobody will listen to you because it’s a JJ Abrams production. If it was a Berman or even Nimoy production, nobody would question these scenes..”

Yea, exactly. In the five years of being online here at Trekmovie.com, please point out to me previous posts by Vorus or other nuTrek haters where they brought up the historical Trek gravity believability issues (that have been a problem since day 1 of Trek in 1966) from other Trek movies or series??

Come on, I’m waiting?? Provide me your previous example where you posted about this issue regarding other Trek movies or series???

181. Phil - May 1, 2013

@172. Well said. And for the few who are really venting their spleen about it, I’d bet a buck they will be going to see it, too.

182. Vorus - May 1, 2013

@180

Uhm, I could point you to whole FORUMS where I’ve debated Trek’s previous failings. (I’m sure a lot of us could do the same) It has nothing to do with whether I like JJ or Orci or not. I like my SciFi, and Trek in particular, to be believable and well thought out. Something more than random action, “destiny”, mind-boggling coincidences, and the stuff JJ-Trek has so far been. When it fail those criteria, I complain, no matter WHO’S in charge.

183. HubcapDave - May 1, 2013

#170

As has been noted before, Trek has long since flouted the laws of physics. Re-watch the start of ST VI if you don’t believe me.

And yes, hours and hours were put in to detailing the Trek universe. It made sense to when it was on TV. Movies are a different animal altogether.

Now, given the Enterprise is falling toward a planet, if gravity is out and inertial dampening is out, the people in the ship would be pressed against the bulkhead opposite of the direction the ship is falling. If, however, if inertial dampening were still online, that would cancel out the force that would push everything in the opposite direction, in which case the gravity well of the planet would assert itself upon the people and loose object within the ship.

184. K-7 - May 1, 2013

@182. OK, provide me a link to a specific forum then where you have specifically brought this gravity issue up on on other Trek series or movies. If you provide that link, I will be happy to cede to you that you are being consistent here, and not just nitpicking on JJ-Trek.

Get back to me when you have that link?

185. Robman007 - May 1, 2013

@179..agree. I remember being excited as can be for Nemesis, yet fell asleep half way through the film because it killed me what Star Trek was turning into….same with Insurrection. Didn’t feel too bad about falling asleep for that because it only cost me 2.50 to see it in an American Theater in Germany and the awesome DS9 was still on TV.

@182..well, at least you admit to complaining about ALL of it. That works. Don’t get me wrong, I had issues with Trek 09 and have some minor problems with this film so far, but whatever works. I love it, especially after seeing Star Trek get utterly destroyed by the garbage that was passed off as Trek in Voyager, the TNG Films and most of Enterprise.

186. It's a TV show! - May 1, 2013

Vorus-

Look, I get it. I’m a lawyer. I can’t watch law shows because they are always so wrong. I appreciate accuracy, consistency and the like. And the black hole scene at the end of trek09 drives me bonkers. But guess what, I still loved the film.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. If the new trek doesn’t work for you, then it doesn’t work for you. Plain and simple…. If the lapses in physics detract from your ability to lose yourself in the story and thus detract from your ability to enjoy it, that’s understandable!

But your original post makes incredibly broad assumptions when you haven’t even seen the film and/or context for the scene. There may well be a good explanation for what’s going on there. Even if there is not, I refer to the dozens of posts above in which posters point out that trek has always played fast and loose with science. It is fiction, after all!

Your post also does a lot more than simpy state an opinion – it comes off as highly combative and insulting to everyone else. Maybe you didn’t intend to come across this way, but you imply that anyone who enjoys JJs trek is too stupid to understand that the physics are all wrong… And that anyone with half a brain would walk out of the theater over such egregious uses of science. That YOU and YOUT standards are SO much higher than everyone elses… get my point here? Further, calling orci & co “bad writers” for the sole reason that they play fast and loose with the laws of physics is patently absurd. This is science fiction. It is entertainment. It is my opinion that JJ, Orci & co have put their hearts and souls into these movies – and whether or not you agree with their approach, they deserve better than to be insulted for pursuing their vision for trek. Remember, without JJ, trek may well have died with enterprise.

187. Dave H - May 1, 2013

Vorus, you are trying to put “hard science fiction” standards on Star Trek, which has always been a “soft science fiction” show.

I don’t think you understand Star Trek very well. It’s not hard sf. Never has been, and never will be.

188. Red Dead Ryan - May 1, 2013

It’s interesting that when it comes to the “science” of new Trek, people are quick to slam it, while praising the previous incarnations’ depictions.

The thing is, when you boil it all down, we didn’t really see any dramatic differences in the style of physical stunts and action scenes throughout TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, and movies 1-10.

The J.J Abrams movies have ramped up the action, and the clip above features actions and stunts never before seen in Trek. The levels of complexity, speed, furocity, and overall excitement is much higher, and grander now.

And that may be the true heart of the matter for those bemoaning the physics in this clip. These fans got used to the simplistic and conventional action scenes depicted in the previous Trek incarnations.

The new movies represent change, and the style of action depicted in them are quite different, and much more intense. A lot of Trekkies, unfortunately, don’t like, or can’t accept, change.

So when some fans cry out “Gee, the physics are all wrong!”, what they are really saying is “I’d rather sit and watch the more intellectually satisfying fight scenes between the Gorn and Captain Kirk in “Arena”! The rapid, energetic style of the new movies are too much for my brain to process! I want something slower, damn it!”.

It just goes to show that some Trekkies can’t evolve with the times. Which is ironic, since Gene Roddenberry created the whole thing to show the evolution of human society.

189. Vorus - May 1, 2013

@183

No, the crew would be floating, just like the astronauts do on the space station. Imagine a free-falling elevator. It is ropping out from under you at 1g, and you are falling at 1g. The net result is that you are “floating” inside the elevator. Same thing should happen to the Enterprise’s crew. The fact that it isn’t is a relust of bad writing. Thus my complaint.

190. Vorus - May 1, 2013

@184

Sure, no problem. Just show we the episode or film in which this same thing happened. They haven’t made this mistake before, how could I complain about it?

191. Vorus - May 1, 2013

@187

Actually, Damon Lindorf claims Trek is Hard Sci Fi.

http://io9.com/damon-lindelof-star-trek-is-hard-science-fiction-not-483030807

Adds more weight to my complaint.

192. K-7 - May 1, 2013

@190. LOL

I figured you would respond with something lame like this — turning my legitimate question and challenge into something back at me instead of answering it.

You are not fooling anyone here. :-))

193. captain spock - May 1, 2013
194. Vorus - May 1, 2013

@ 186

I’m sorry you feel insulted by my first post. However, I was pretty clear that It was the most cringe-worthy thing *I* have seen. (Thus it is my opinion) And that the blame falls on the writers and director(s). I never made any implication that “anyone who likes this scene is stupid”, or anything like that. I was expressing the fact that I think it is stupid, and why I think so. That’s a pretty rational way of expressing an opinion.

If I think something is stupid, I’m not going to say “Well gee, I hate to sound contrary, but with all due respect that seems a little off there.” I’m going to say “I think that’s stupid”. And then I’m going to explain why.

I COMPLETELY allow (and expect) others to have differing opinions, and I more than WELCOME people to express their opinions. But I’m not going to sugar coat my opinions just because other people don’t agree with them. And why should I? I don’t expect that of others.

195. HubcapDave - May 1, 2013

#189

I think you are missing the fact that as it is falling, it is accelerating. The acceleration would push people and loose objects in the direction opposite the acceleration.

However, it is my assertion that while gravity was out (or malfunctioning), inertial dampening was not, thus allowing everything to fall towards the gravity well of the planet.

196. Dave H - May 1, 2013

#191 / Vorus

Star Trek has never been hard scifi. We all know that. Quoting one mistaken writer hardly changes the reality of what we all know to be true.

Also, why are you avoiding K-7′s request to provide links that show you have brought up all of the historical questions about gravity and movements of the Enterprise before STID? It certainly seemed like a reasonable request. Just provide us all some links that show that you have brought up anything related to the issues of the Enterprise’s physical movement versus gravity on other Star Trek movies or episodes? This seems like a perfectly reasonable way for you to prove here that you are not simply spouting hate on JJ-Trek?

197. Vorus - May 1, 2013

@188

I can’t speak for everyone here, but for me it’s not about “adapting to change”. If you went back far enough, you’d find posts by me here an TrekMovie defending the first film and all it’s changes, before it came out, and proved itself to be little more than a summer action flick with a Trek skin.

I’m fine with some changes. Others, I’m not fine with. It’s not the change ITSELF I don’t like. I don’t hold Trek up to some standard, and say “This cannot ever be modified in any way”. However, I also don’t have to like everything that changes just because it has the Trek name on it. In my opinion, some of the changes have been for the worse. I’m not going to ignore things I don’t like just because they come in a Trek wrapper.

198. HubcapDave - May 1, 2013

#190

See the beginning of ST VI…….

199. Vorus - May 1, 2013

@196

Exactly which starship gravitational anomalies am I supposed to be upset about? I’m not ignoring the question, I’m simply not seeing any other bad artificial gravity related problems in any other Trek to complain about. And certainly none of this level of severity.

200. Dave H - May 1, 2013

#199.

That is a complete cop-out. The movement of the Enterprise and the use of artificial gravity have a been a joke from day 1. I have never taken it seriously.

If you have supposed that this has all been “fine” in every other version of Trek, but now this scene in STID bothers you, then I think you are being either foolish, disingenuous, or both.

201. Vorus - May 1, 2013

@195

No, falling would NOT push people up against the opposite wall. Here’s why:

The Earth is pulling on them with 1g of force. If the artificial gravity was out, but the ship was hanging motionless (NAT falling) over the Earth, what would the crew experience?

They would stick to the floor of the ship, because the Earth is pulling on them with 1g of force.

Now, the ship drops out from under them at 1g. (Downward acceleration. ie FALLING) Now what is the crew experiencing?

They are still experiencing the pull of the Earth, just as before, except that this time, the floor is falling out from under them at the same rate. In other words, they are floating.

See here for more explanation:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/07/why-do-astronauts-float-around-in-space/

202. Vorus - May 1, 2013

@200

WHAT EXACTLY about artificial garvity has been bad “since day 1″?! Talk about a cop-out. “It’s always bad, if you’re too dumb to see that, I’m not giving you an example”.

Give me one single example of artificial gravity being used as badly as this one.

203. Vorus - May 1, 2013

@196

I’ve always thought of Trek as pretty hard SciFi. Not on the level of the old classic SciFi novels of the 50s, but more so than say, Star Wars, or Buck Rodgers.

Read some of the old Trek Tech manuals. The 80s-90s era show runners took their Trek science and Tech pretty seriously.

204. Vorus - May 1, 2013

@196

Also, I wasn’t quoting Lindorf to prove that Trek is hard SciFi. I was quoting him to show that he THINKS his Trek is hard SciFi. THIS is what he thinks hard SciFi IS. That’s kind of sad, if you ask me.

205. K-7 - May 1, 2013

Dave H,

Give it up, my friend. Vorus first told us all here that:

“Uhm, I could point you to whole FORUMS where I’ve debated Trek’s previous failings.”

But then when I pressed him to provide a specifc link showing he had brought up what most of us think has been a historically abysmal record of physical believably of the Enterprises movements and gravity effects dating back to 1966, he balked and pretended he had questions for me instead.

LOL

Vorus just doesn’t like nuTrek, and this is his current lame pet issue that let’s him bitch about it. That is all we have here.

I’m happy to be of service here to help the discussion for everyone by exposing this for what it is — petty bitching about nuTrek under the falsified guise of scientific issues with a particular STID scene.

206. Vorus - May 1, 2013

@205

Really? MOST of you think that Trek has an ABYSMAL record of showing believable artificial gravity? And I’m just supposed to slink away in defeat without you giving me ONE SINGLE example?

I think not, sir.

Show me some example. It should be easy since evidently, it’s always been so bad that only a fool couldn’t see it.

And for the record, I own the ST09 DVD, and have seen it more times than any of the TNG films, and I own a toy model Enterprise from ST09. I’m hardly a Nu-Trek “Hater”.

207. Tom - May 1, 2013

Did anyone the shot of the Botany Bay in the cargo hold?

Jk

208. Red Dead Ryan - May 1, 2013

Vorus,

It’s interesting how you keep claiming you’ve posted complaints about previous Trek’s depictions of science and physics, yet when asked to prove it, you haven’t, but instead reversed it to avoid responsibility. Where are the links?

Now you’re trying the same stunt with me? This time claiming that you supposedly defended the first film? Sorry, not accepting this.

And I have been coming to this site for almost five years now. Up until today, I have never seen you here before.

So unless I see some proof shown by you, I can’t take anything you say seriously. You could very well be a troll.

209. DiscoSpock - May 1, 2013

All,

What is new about having to suspend the disbelief about the Enterprise’s movements in space, near planets, and rocking around, etc? That has always been iffy at best.

And Damon Lindelof and Vorus are pretty much the only two people I have ever heard claim that Star Trek is hard sf. No way — I don’t think 99% of us here would agree with their opinion on that.

Here’s an alternate example of improvements in science by the new movies. In most Star Treks before the new movies, out the window, we see stars just flying by, like the Enterprise is going say 10 light years per second or some ridiculous speed like that. The new movies don’t show that — which I commend as being much more realistic.

210. K-7 - May 1, 2013

@209 “And Damon Lindelof and Vorus are pretty much the only two people I have ever heard claim that Star Trek is hard sf. No way — I don’t think 99% of us here would agree with their opinion on that.”

Well said. In being a Trek fan for decades, I have never run into anyone until now who claimed that Star Trek was hard science fiction. That is utterly preposterous! Of course Star Trek is not HARD sf? Duh!!!

@208 “It’s interesting how you keep claiming you’ve posted complaints about previous Trek’s depictions of science and physics, yet when asked to prove it, you haven’t, but instead reversed it to avoid responsibility. Where are the links? Now you’re trying the same stunt with me? This time claiming that you supposedly defended the first film? Sorry, not accepting this.”

Stick to you guns, RDR. I am still waiting for the links he owes me as well. He is trying to deflect our questions by instead coming back at us with questions. Answering a question with a question is how bad politicians operations. Fortunately, you and I are not easily fooled by these tactics — the tactics of a Charlatan.

211. Red Dead Ryan - May 1, 2013

Also, the artificial gravity depicted in Trek was an easy, cheap, and overall more practical way to allow “Star Trek” to be produced. In short, its a magic device. Just like transporters are.

The idea of artificial gravity wasn’t exactly groundbreaking. It was necessary. It would be ridiculous to expect sci-fi productions such as “Star Trek” and “Star Wars” to feature people fighting while floating in the air. Not to mention that it would be time-costly, and extremely difficult, physical-wise.

I mean, really, how would one generate artificial gravity on a starship?

The only form of gravity we know is what we experience here on Earth. And that is generated by the spinning, superheated core in conjunction with the Earth’s solid density and size. Kind of hard to replicate that.

212. Vorus - May 1, 2013

@208

Well, I really don’t care what people think of me. I’m not lying, and I’ve been here nearly as long as you. I don’t post much, so I don’t blame you for not remembering.

Do you want random links to things I’ve complained about in Trek, or will you only accept complaints about gravity? Because I’m pretty sure I’ve never complained about gravity before, because they’ve newer screwed it up this badly.

Just about the only place that still exists that I used to post at is here:

http://unofficialstartreklegacyforum.yuku.com/

I am “Rogue Vulcan” there, but I haven’t posted there in a while. But there is still some good stuff in the General Trek section. There’s a good argument about who is stronger, Vulcans or Klingons. You can ask anyone that still posts there about me, they’ll tell you I complained about plenty of things in “classic” Trek.

I have a Sisko-related rant here on a tiny forum a friend made:

http://z13.invisionfree.com/Negativezone/index.php?showtopic=122

That is my best “angry rant” I can find real quick. I don’t post ANYWHERE much anymore, mostly because of people like K-7, who have no interest in having logical discussions. It’s not much of a forum, but it serves to demonstrate the point that I can find things to complain vociferously about in “classic” Trek.

213. Vorus - May 1, 2013

@210

And I’m still waiting to hear from YOU about what it is exactly that I’m supposed to have complained about in the past.

214. HubcapDave - May 1, 2013

#201

Done a little reading, and once the ship in free-fall reaches terminal velocity, you’d be right. However, as long as the ship is accelerating, inertia would propel things in the opposite direction of the acceleration.

However, my example has the inertial dampening field cancelling out inertia, hence things would fall in the direction of the gravity well of the planet.

215. ACJG1985 - May 1, 2013

So what can we put together here? Well, Scotty is back on the Enterprise after last being seen drinking with Keenser on Earth when Kirk calls him… Somehow, presumably after the space jump that puts Kirk and Harrison onto the Vengeance, Kirk and Scotty end up on the Enterprise running towards engineering in the hope if saving the ship as it crashes uncontrollably into Earth’s atmosphere (presumably they got from the Vengeance to the Enterprise with Harrison’s line “a ship shouldn’t go down without her captain”) Enterprise if without power and has lost enertional dampers as well as the deflector dish and her Engines have failed, Emergency Power is failing and the ship is basically burning up because its entry vector is outside of the small envelope for safe re-entry as discovered by NASA. Now the complaint is about the physics of people walking on walls during re-entry due to artificial gravity? Ok, at a certain point in the atmosphere the gravity of the planet has to act upon the ship as we saw with the space jump from low earth orbit done recently. Now we know from moon landings that although the astronauts in the LEM began weightless on the decent to the moon they experience lunar gravity so there’s nothing wrong with the physics, the bridge crew are strapped in, what if gravity failed and so they needed to be strapped in to avoid floating off their consoles? If there is a failure in gravity and the Enterprise has fallen far enough into the atmosphere then the plants gravity will take over and the people will orientate to the ship as she falls that’s sound physics but as I said we don’t know what’s happened prior to the plunge so we can’t judge.

216. Basement Blogger - May 1, 2013

@ 145, 191

In defense of Vorus and calling Kayla Iacovino, our science officer,

Look, I liked the clip. And yep, I;m one of those that will try to rectify with the idea that the artificial gravity was malfunctioning. Hey, I’m a Blogger not a physicist. It would help if our Science Gal would get over here. Kayla?

But guys, I think it’s okay that Vorus brings up errors in science. Maybe next time they won’t make them. It could be worse. You could have people in space without suits. See Han Solo and Leia in the great Empire Strikes Back inI the asteroid worm. I wouldn’t ask Lindelof for science advice because of Lost. The castaways survive the detonation of a nuclear bomb at point blank range! Just remember that Star Trek had science advisors on the show. And it’s been an inspiration to people in NASA and the science community. So, let’s not go into Star Wars or Buck Rogers territory.

I don’t agree with 186 saying your tone was insulting. You didn’t insult me for the artificial gravity failing reasoning, You did a great job of debunking me but hey, I’m going to go with that. Look I liked Star Trek 2009 but thought it was light as Star Trek. Roger Ebert said it lacked scientific or philosophical ideas. The big picture is whether this film is Star Trek. From what I’ve seen, I’m very hopeful.

217. Red Dead Ryan - May 1, 2013

#210.

Yeah, I have to think that Vorus is embarrassed at himself now. He knows he’s been called out. He knows he’s cornered. He just can’t admit defeat.

As for whether “Star Trek” is hard sci-fi or not, I would say that it is semi-hard sci-fi.

While most of the science is questionable from a factual perspective, what the shows and movies have presented that can be credited are concepts, such as warp drive, phasers, photon torpedos, tractor beams, communicators, PADDs, holodecks, etc.

These things, minus PADD’s and communicators, are a long ways off. Chances are we will achieve these things, but just like how cell phones and mobile devices work slightly differently from communicators and PADDs, they will not be function in exactly the same manner, nor will their components be exactly the same. I mean we may not end up using matter and anti-matter to travel at warp speed. It might be something else that powers warp drive.

I don’t look to “Star Trek” for scientific facts. I enjoy “Star Trek” for the concepts and ideas that it represents and promotes.

218. HubcapDave - May 1, 2013

#206

Again, the beginning of ST VI…..

219. Vorus - May 1, 2013

@218

What about it? I don’t see what you’re talking about just by saying “The Beginning of ST”VI”.

220. Dave H - May 1, 2013

Vorus,

You bring up all these issues with this scene, but in reality the Enterprise for years has been using artificial gravity, yet in science, physicists have NEVER been able to show that Gravitons exist. NEVER.

So when K-7 asked you to provide links of where you have brought up issues with previous Star Trek’s like this, I would think, that if you really are consistent and have integrity on this issue like you say, that you should easily be able to provide us a link where you have brought up concerns in general with them using artificial gravity on the E, given that their is currently no scientific basis for AG.

Can’t you at least provide us one link from past posts or forums where you would have challenged AG in Star Trek. If you are true to your word, you must have brought up this issues multiple times previously.

Disco Spock said:

“Here’s an alternate example of improvements in science by the new movies. In most Star Treks before the new movies, out the window, we see stars just flying by, like the Enterprise is going say 10 light years per second or some ridiculous speed like that. The new movies don’t show that — which I commend as being much more realistic.”

This is a great point! One would expect that Vorus would be extremely happy of this element of nuTrek, and defend this change as vigorously as he/she has attacked elements he/she does not like, right?

221. Vorus - May 1, 2013

@217

What am I supposed to be embarrassed or “called out” on? That I supposedly just hate JJ-Trek?

222. Jeyl - May 1, 2013

“It just goes to show that some Trekkies can’t evolve with the times. Which is ironic, since Gene Roddenberry created the whole thing to show the evolution of human society.”

Not as ironic compared to what you just said. Gene Roddenberry, while working on the original series, ripped off very talented people who were just trying to make an earnest living. Next time you want to discuss an “evolved human society”, go with someone who actually practices what they preach.

As for Star Trek evolving? I’m not seeing it. Maybe if this new Star Trek had a bit more variety to it, I’d be more open to seeing where it’s actually going to go. Unfortunately, we only get one new Star Trek story every three to four years where we used to get a whole season’s worth of stories every year, including some overlapping from different Star Trek series. All I see and hear from these new Star Trek films is “action packed” this and “action packed” that, as if to say that’s all Star Trek ever really needed. Now I’m not saying that a Star Trek story with action in it is a bad thing. Not at all. But a Star Trek story that doesn’t have any action isn’t a bad thing either. Do you really get the impression that anyone involved in making JJ’s new Star Trek wants to have a story that doesn’t involve high stakes, non-stop action? I sure don’t.

I understand why people like these films, but there doesn’t seem to be that much of an understanding as to why others, including Trekkies, do not. Here’s a quote from SFDebris where he tries to reason with both parties without resorting to the “one side is right and the other side is wrong” or that now tired cliché from the Onion “Trekkies hate it because it’s good”.

“People who hate this film. The affection for this film is not because those who disagree are low brow sheep who are distracted by the flashing lights. The film has plenty of action, energy, palpable enthusiasm and an intense push forward. It may not be a cerebral con, but it’s still a fun film even discounting all the special effects.

People who love this film. The hatred for this film is not because dorks won’t settle for anything less than an old school snore fest. Even ignoring any previous knowledge of Star Trek, the plot is stupid. Some of the characterization is shoddy, many actions and events are absurd and any science mentioned is laughably wrong. And it all leads up to a face palming conclusion. It is a film where the spectacle is outweighing the substance.

223. Garth Of Izar - May 1, 2013

#221.- Vorus… Borus whatever your name is… Its a movie – sci fi …get it its 2 hours of fun!!

You don’t like JJverse, don’t see the movie. plain and simple. you’re right no one cares about your opinions.

Problem Solved.

224. K-7 - May 1, 2013

“Vorus, You bring up all these issues with this scene, but in reality the Enterprise for years has been using artificial gravity, yet in science, physicists have NEVER been able to show that Gravitons exist. NEVER….Can’t you at least provide us one link from past posts or forums where you would have challenged AG in Star Trek. If you are true to your word, you must have brought up this issues multiple times previously.”

Exactly. Thank you for framing the question more specifically for Vorus, so that he/she can’t weasel out of my original challenge to him/her. We are all waiting here for Vorus to provide evidence that he/she challenged the unproven and iffy subject of artificial gravity and anit-gravity in Star Trek previous to this STID scene.

There you go, Vorus. The question now is more specific. Please provide the links from your past posts are forums where you challenged AG in general based on it not being scientifically plausible?

225. Vorus - May 1, 2013

@220

I’ve never complained about the EXISTENCE of AG, there is no reason to. It’s part of the lore of Trek. I complain about it when they break their own internal consistency, and/or defy even simple logic, as happens in the STID clip.

AG in itself is not the problem. The problem is that there is simply NO WAY for it to act as it does in the clip, ether by malfunction or deactivation.

As for the “stars” whizzing by the windows, those have never been intended to be taken as a depiction of the speed of the ship. It’s been variously explained by people working on the show, as either a visual distortion caused by warp, or an effect of the warp bubble, or something else they didn’t think of. But yes, the “stars” whizzing by doesn’t make any sense if we assume they are stars.

The main problem here is that many of you are missing the point. (And demonstrating why I hardly ever bother posting on the internet anymore…)

Whatever other errors Trek has or has not made over the years does not negate or excuse the error I am talking about. If someone robs a bank, do the cops let him off the next time he just robs a gas station because “It’s not as bad as what he did last time”? No. An error is an error. And even if I thought this was the worst error in all of Trek (Which I don’t) that doesn’t matter, because that is MY opinion. In MY eyes, this error is worse than “star streaks” at warp. In MY opinion, this is a stupider-looking thing to put in a Trek movie. That’s why I’M complaining about it.

If you don’t agree, that’s fine. I really don’t care. I just came here to post MY opinion about something.

226. HubcapDave - May 1, 2013

#219

that’s when the Excelsior gets hit by the shock wave of Praxis exploding. Excelsior gets knocked up by the shock wave (which is a physical impossibility in of itself) and the crew goes flying. As the ship moves through the shock wave, the gravity in the ship acts like the ship is going uphill, as we Captain Sulu crawling back towards his chair like he’s being pushed against the deck. That shouldn’t happen with the way artificial gravity is supposed to work in the Trek universe.

227. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - May 1, 2013

@219. Vorus

I think HubcapDave is drawing your attention to the effect the subspace shockwave from the explosion on Praxis had on the USS Excelsior – with people being thrown out of their bunks etc. It took me a while to remember that scene.

228. K-7 - May 1, 2013

Vorus: “It’s part of the lore of Trek.”

OK, this closes off discussion here. In 20 years, this scene Vorus dislikes will also be then called “part of the lore of Trek.”

Problem solved. Not sure what this was all about then???

New topic?

229. K-7 - May 1, 2013

@116 “that’s when the Excelsior gets hit by the shock wave of Praxis exploding. Excelsior gets knocked up by the shock wave (which is a physical impossibility in of itself) and the crew goes flying. As the ship moves through the shock wave, the gravity in the ship acts like the ship is going uphill, as we Captain Sulu crawling back towards his chair like he’s being pushed against the deck. That shouldn’t happen with the way artificial gravity is supposed to work in the Trek universe.”

OF COURSE !!!

230. Vorus - May 1, 2013

@ 224

You are getting more and more ridiculous, do you realize that? You’re changing your criteria to make yourself appear correct.

I don’t need to have a problem with AG to have a problem with this scene. AG is not the problem in the scene. A failure to understand PHYSICS is the problem with the scene. There is no way for the gravity, REAL or ARTIFICIAL to make the scene happen that way. It’s not the way physics works.

231. Phil - May 1, 2013

@209. Nothing at all, actually. With a few exceptions, Trek isn’t hard sci-fi, and most everyone seems comfortable with that.

What drives the discussion is that back in the days of TOS, they did make an effort at continuity and plausibility of physics. Whatever artificial limits they set on the tech of the future, they tried to stick with it. So, deflectors deflected, computers computed, and phasers were, well, phasers. And they tried their best to adhere to known physics…Problem is, when TNG rolled around they started to play fast and loose with the limits on tech. By the time TNG ended its run there wasn’t anything Enterprise couldn’t do by swapping a few chips around, and it seems there wasn’t a problem anywhere that couldn’t be fixed with phaserfire or torpedoes, as long as you ‘modulated their frequency’ or whatever the hell that meant. So we fast forward to STID, and from what we have seen tech can do anything, including violating the laws of physics.

Yeah, I’d rather see them tow the line on physics, but they aren’t, so it is what it is. I’ll still see the movie, one way or another…

232. Red Dead Ryan - May 1, 2013

I clicked on the second link that Vorus provided, and it shows him posting how supposedly heinous Captain Sisko was, and how he should have been put on trial and then sentenced to life in prison.

It was him, and Martok. But I suspect it was really only Vorus responding to himself.

I’m not sure what all this means, apart from the fact that Vorus needs to get outside of his basement and breathe in some much needed fresh air. :-)

233. Dave H - May 1, 2013

HubcapDave, Obsessive Star Trek Fan,

Great example!!!! There are many more like this, especially in TOS.

234. K-7 - May 1, 2013

@232: “I clicked on the second link that Vorus provided, and it shows him posting how supposedly heinous Captain Sisko was, and how he should have been put on trial and then sentenced to life in prison.”

wtf???

235. Red Dead Ryan - May 1, 2013

#228.

I guess he admitted defeat, then? :-)

236. Vorus - May 1, 2013

@226

No, he’s not crawling against “gravity” to his chair. You can tell that the gravity on the ship is still pulling him toward the deck, because it is pulling everything and everyone else toward the deck too. (Notice the man standing upright behind the railing behind him.)

I’d say he’s crawling like that because of the turbulence, not because he’s fighting “gravity”. Otherwise no one could be sitting and standing upright, and the chunks of his broken tea cup wouldn’t still be laying on the deck behind him.

Everything else in the scene proves that AG is functioning normally. Things and people are still being pulled toward the deck. I can understand why you think otherwise, but thu evidence says things are still being pulled to the deck.

237. DiscoSpock - May 1, 2013

Sisko???

Maybe it is time for us all to move on here to a new topic, as I’m not sure we are dealing with someone who has a “full deck,” if you know what I mean?

238. HubcapDave - May 1, 2013

@233

Thanks! Funny, my last name also starts with an H, so the first time I saw you post in this thread, I thought “How am I posting here from somewhere else?”

239. Vorus - May 1, 2013

@232

I like how you just turn it into a personal attack. Yes, it’s a small friends-only forum. No, I didn’t respond to myself, and actually I am a married, healthy adult.

But your response shows the kind of man you are.

240. Vorus - May 1, 2013

It’s nice to see that Trek fans are so accepting of someone with an opinion different than the “norm”.

Oh wait.

241. Red Dead Ryan - May 1, 2013

The second link he provided is appropriately called “NegativeZone”. It’s no surprise that Vorus and “Martok” are the only posters there.

Vorus was on a witchhunt, spending a lot of time arguing why Sisko was a war criminal.

I have never seen someone have such a grudge against a fictional character.

It’s pretty sad and pathetic.

242. Giez sick of Whiners - May 1, 2013

VORUS

Man… it’s a movie. I only watched a few seconds but didn’t want it all ruined.. Looked great to me!

Enjoy it for what it is and it’s that simple. Either watch it or don’t. I wish I could spend all day knocking the writers for a scene for “not being totally scientific”… yikes…

I suppose the AG was keeping Carol Wallace Marcus’ boobs from being as big as they really are too, right??

Just enjoy that a new Star Trek film is almost here… or don’t..

Giez

243. K-7 - May 1, 2013

@237. Agreed, we need a new topic.

This discussion is now pointless in any case, given that anything scientifically questionable that Vourus likes is simply “Treklore” that we should accept at face value, but anything scientifically he chooses not to like has to be physically explained in detail — it’s kind of hard here to have a discussion here with someone who argues on an unfair playing field like this. LOL

244. Vorus - May 1, 2013

@242

Again, I never said that this scene “ruins” the film for me. I just don’t like it. I didn’t like it when SW EpIII did it either. I just think it looks stupid, for many reasons.

However, some people can’t seem to accept that I have a different opinion than they do. They’re quite effectively reminding me why I stopped reading the comments here.

245. K-7 - May 1, 2013

RDR: “Vorus was on a witch-hunt, spending a lot of time arguing why Sisko was a war criminal.”

RDR, he says utter crap like that on a public forum, but now he is attacking you for bringing it up…and yet he provided you the link to view?

Vorus, stop crapping in public and then blaming others for the stink. Take personal responsibility for your own posts. You provided the links yourself, so stop whining about the obvious and expected response about you calling Capt Sisko a War Criminal. No one here is going to give you a free pass on such incendiary comments.

Sheesh!!!!

246. Lurker - May 1, 2013

So some of you are all up in arms about the physics of this scene, and nuTrek in general…do you have the same problem with the SOUND of the Enterprise fly by scenes in TOS? They knew there was no sound in space. And yes I know Roddenberry included sound on purpose – and he did it so the MAINSTREAM audience could easily relate to what they were seeing.

Give it a rest okay? Don’t complain about nuTrek and conveniently forget the concessions they also made in the past.

247. Marja - May 1, 2013

129, Northstar, I couldn’t agree more.

Tho these passionate discussions pitting real science against Trek “science” are kind of amusing.

I’m a lot more interested in the psychology and sociology of Trek so others might find that equally amusing.

Still sometimes fun to discuss.

fiction is fiction

248. Vorus - May 1, 2013

@245

I never complained about anyone disagreeing with me. I fully expect most Trek fans to disagree with that rant, since most of them like Sisko. I simply pointed out that as a group, we should be better than attacking a person’s character for a difference of opinion. I assume you agree we should be above that, or at least I hope you would agree.

It also satisfies your request for proof that I at some point complained about “Classic” Trek, which was why I linked to it.

249. Vorus - May 1, 2013

@246

So, by your logic, we should just throw ALL realism out the window for a good film? Where is your “line in the sand”, so to speak? At what point would you see a scene in an action movie and say “Okay, that was just stupid”? Because I guarantee you have such a line. This scene just happens to step over that line, in my opinion.

That’s all. Seriously, you guys are making a MUCH bigger deal out of complaining about my complaint than I made complaining about the scene in the first place.

250. K-7 - May 1, 2013

Sure, Vorus, I agree that you should able to provide unusual Trek opinions without character attacks.

Keep in mind though, then when you say things that most of us will perceive as kind of crazy, that it will likely result in many of us not giving much credence to your other opinions.

251. Vorus - May 1, 2013

@250

That’s fine. View my opinions as crazy, in many cases I EXPECT people to do so. That honestly does not bother me one bit. I’m not offended by it, nor do I think any less of you for doing it. There are TONS of people both in the real world and online whose opinions I think are crazy.

I respect their right to have opinions other than mine. And if I disagree with them, I might try to explain why in a logical fashion. I haven’t seen you or a few others do either of those things.

But I don’t attack those people. I don’t try to make them look stupid. I don’t try to puff myself up to the crowd around me. I HAVE seen you and a few others do that. That DOES make me think less of you.

252. Lurker - May 1, 2013

#170:
“I just miss the days when the scince and tech is Star Trek was above that of summer action flicks. Back when they used to print 150 page tech manuals and official ship blueprints, all of which showed that the crew and writers put a lot of thought into HOW and WHY their universe worked the way it did.”

The TOS manual had schematics of communicators and tricorders built with resistors and capacitors. There’s some hard sci fi for you.

253. Shatterhand - May 1, 2013

@ #’s 15, 29, 34, 36, 37, 41, 49, 127, 145, ad nauseam:

Seven Hells, there is WAY too much butt-hurt here.

Okay, listen…first of all, we all know that Star Trek has had roots planted more firmly in science fact than science fiction. In fact, TNG was the birthplace of the “technobabble” that became a constant in all of the series and movies that followed. While it’s commendable that the technical teams behind Star Trek made the effort to use true science as a baseline for the technology of the “universe” we’ve all come to know and love, any Star Trek fan worthy of being called one has to admit that the application, description and use of said technology was 10% true science, 90% fantasy. Okay, those percentages may not be completely accurate, but the difference would be negligible. Many times, that “pseudo-scientific terminology” (That’s Memory Alpha Wiki’s description, not mine) was used as a deus ex machina to solve the problem-of-the-week that plagued the characters in whatever episode or movie it was featured in. The scriptwriters would even put “(TECH) in the scripts as “a sort of cry for help” so scientific adviser Andre Bormanis could step in and put in terminology that fit.

Granted, we have Star Trek to thank for inspiring many of the scientific innovations that exist today, but a sizable portion of that future technology remains firmly in the realm of science fiction.

SO, to shake fists in anger and have a spittle-flecked rage-fest over how people shouldn’t be falling in a starship that’s supposed to be equipped with artificial gravity is at least silly, if not completely nonsensical. Yeah, I know… “But…but…PHYSICS!!!” Well, that’s fine and all, but again, a lot of the science of Star Trek has to take liberties with those precious laws in order to provide viewers with the entertainment value that, like it or not, is the driving force behind its success. It’s dramatic license, pure and simple. It may not be scientifically accurate, but it’s not required to be. Sorry; it’s just not, even for a Star Trek movie.

And let’s have a holiday from that chest-beating argument about “Star Trek is supposed to be about exploration, not explosions and phaser fire, blah blah it’s not Star Trek anymore blah.” I’m not sure what Star Trek all of you watched, but being in my late 30s and having watched every single movie and episode of every Star Trek made from the time I was 6 years old onward (and read about 85% of the books and comics as well), I seem to remember a fair amount of action throughout, including plenty of fighting, phaser fire, ship battles, explosions and more. Yes, we did visit a lot of new worlds and meet new civilizations, boldly going where no one had gone before, but not without a fair amount of drama and action to go along with it, and this movie appears to be more of the same. Yes, it may be lighter on the principles that made Star Trek stand apart from other properties in the genre, but people conveniently forget that alongside the ideals of scientific exploration and discovery stood the importance of building bonds of trust and cooperation, and the formation of friendships and relationships. I didn’t see any of that lacking in 2009′s Star Trek and I think we’ll see more of that in this one. And frankly, I’d gladly take plenty of that over pseudo-scientific jargon any day.

But please, tell me again how a scene that takes dramatic license with the laws with physics dooms all of Star Trek.

PS: On the other hand, I too dislike the “brewery” Engine Room. The bridge? Sleek and futuristic. Sickbay? Sleek and futuristic. Engineering? “Got some Leinie’s Honey Weiss brewin’ right down there, Cap’n!” Yikes.

254. K-7 - May 1, 2013

@251. You can have your potshots at me there at the end of your post be the last word with me here on this topic. Congrats on that! :-)

255. K-7 - May 1, 2013

@253 “SO, to shake fists in anger and have a spittle-flecked rage-fest over how people shouldn’t be falling in a starship that’s supposed to be equipped with artificial gravity is at least silly, if not completely nonsensical. Yeah, I know… “But…but…PHYSICS!!!” Well, that’s fine and all, but again, a lot of the science of Star Trek has to take liberties with those precious laws in order to provide viewers with the entertainment value that, like it or not, is the driving force behind its success. It’s dramatic license, pure and simple. It may not be scientifically accurate, but it’s not required to be. Sorry; it’s just not, even for a Star Trek movie.”

O U T S T A N D I N G ! ! !

You nailed it, man.

256. Lurker - May 1, 2013

@253

Bravo.

257. K-7 - May 1, 2013

“The TOS manual had schematics of communicators and tricorders built with resistors and capacitors. There’s some hard sci fi for you.”

LOL — Exactly. That was more about book-selling than science fiction, although I too enjoyed and still have that manual.

258. Vorus - May 1, 2013

@253

I understand your point. But again, I’d ask; “Where is your line in the sand”? At what point would a film do something so stupid that you complained about the stupidity of it? Is it when the bad guy fires 150 bullets out of his six-shooter? Or is it when that crazy film from India has the guy and his horse slide under the semi truck, get back up and keep going?

We ALL have our line where we just have to point out “Ok, that was just plain stupid”. For some of us, that line is pretty close by, for others, it’s WWAYY out there, you can enjoy most anything. But neither of those lines is any better or more valid than any other, they are all just DIFFERENT. Just because you have a different line than someone else doesn’t mean they have no right to tell you where their line is.

259. Lurker - May 1, 2013

257 – The TOS-style ship designs are great.

If they only had the money and resources back then.

260. K-7 - May 1, 2013

@259. Yea, the original Tech Manual and original Star Trek blueprints are classics. The Spaceflight Chronology was also fantastic.

I am less fond of the later Okuda stuff though. Too much techno-babble.

PS: I assume your handle is in reference to Robopocalypse, right? I love that book!

261. Lurker - May 1, 2013

No – handle is an old Genesis song and the literal meaning of the word. I mostly visit these forums to read and get a kick out of what is said.

I agree about the manuals. They are neat, and serve their purpose…

262. Phil - May 1, 2013

@258 It might help to not paint things in such absolutes, because every movie is going to be received differently. I walked out of the theater feeling stupid for having dropped seven bucks on Ang Lees Hulk. CGI Arnold was a facepalm moment in that movie. Most of ST:Generations was just stupid. My son plays video games, and the character always seems to be carrying around a quarter ton of weapons and ammo…and running. Most people have seen footage from the ISS, so they have an idea what it looks like to be in a low gravity environment. While there is an intuitive knowledge, most of those same people have no idea who Newton was. So we will suspend disbelief, and go enjoy the show. Lets not forget that it was Roddenberry’s Trek who give us the concept of not having to stop and explain how everything worked…it’s a shame ST got away from that.

263. Keachick - May 1, 2013

Budgineering again…I really hope that Scotty has got the budgies properly secured. All that fluttering about could damage their delicate wings…:)

264. sean - May 1, 2013

Hate to break it to you folks, but the ‘gravity plating’ is magic. It always has been. It’s silly to complain about a magic thing being capable of doing magic things because they aren’t the magic things you think it should be capable of.

265. Keachick - May 1, 2013

Hasn’t NASA developed some form of artificial gravity? I thought I had read that somewhere. The problem is that it requires a lot of energy to maintain a small gravitational environment.

That and the need to develop engines able to go at much faster speed than at present are the two major obstacles preventing any real space travel and exploration at this time.

266. cd - May 1, 2013

Masher scene from Galaxy Quest

267. Crewman Darnell - May 1, 2013

Regarding the “Is Star Trek Hard SF, or not?” debate, in 1976, Issac Asimov weighed in on the subject. In this terrific interview with Gene Roddenberry, Asimov seems reasonably pleased with the “science” of TOS. “You were doing it intelligently and plausibly.” He makes other comments that are so eerily relevant to this entire discussion. I urge everyone to have a listen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXsrU5DBaVA&list=PLD2605B226BCF3628

268. cd - May 1, 2013

Star Trek TNG Technical Manual page 24 has one of my favorite ‘technobabble’ phrases concerning this stuff: “chunky salsa”.

>;>}

269. cd - May 1, 2013

265 – “Hasn’t NASA developed some form of artificial gravity?”
Uhh, no.

270. cd - May 1, 2013

The gravity plating may be magic, but it behaves in a particular way, not consistent with what is shown in the clip. But maybe they are being acted on by an external force, like a tractor beam and the IDF is down, then this could be plausible.
Chunky salsa.

271. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - May 1, 2013

@267. Crewman Darnell

Thank you for posting that link. That video is well worth listening to, and – as you say – ‘eerily relevant to this entire discussion.’

272. Crewman Darnell - May 1, 2013

222. Jeyl: “It is a film where the spectacle is outweighing the substance.”

Having just listened to the 1976 “Inside Star Trek,” I can’t help but feel all the more that the J.J. films are in fact putting spectacle above substance. I realize that a hefty amount of “spectacle” is required to make a film successful, but in this case, respective to the origin of the material, the spectacle vs substance ratio is way off balance.

273. Vultan - May 1, 2013

Damn, that water heater nearly crushed Kirk and Welshy!
Time to head to Home Depot.

274. Red Dead Ryan - May 1, 2013

The “Deep Space Nine” technical manual was great. There was technobble in it for sure, but not as much as in the TNG one. The DS9 version was also filled with more schematics, and was in colour.

The Klingon Bird-Of-Prey Haynes Manual is good, but got bogged down in too much technobabble in some places.

275. Crewman Darnell - May 1, 2013

271. ObsessiveStarTrekFan

For me, after watching the video trailers/clips and reading so many comments debating the science/meaning of Star Trek, listening to that record (“Inside Star Trek”) is like cleansing the palette.

If only Mr Roddenberry and Dr. Asimov were still around..

276. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - May 1, 2013

@272. Crewman Darnell

I would say, though, that Asimov makes a distinction between SF books and SF movies at 4:43 to 5:19 in that audio clip, where he is effectively saying in movies you might have to ‘dumb it down’ a bit for a larger audience…

I personally don’t find the scene grating. On the other hand, if Spock starts haemorrhaging red blood, I’ll throw my popcorn at the screen ;-) Which I guess just goes to show that we all have our line-in-the-sand after all, but everyone has a different line.

277. Devon - May 1, 2013

“If only Mr Roddenberry and Dr. Asimov were still around..”

Their opinions would be as irrelevant now as it was then.

278. Red Dead Ryan - May 1, 2013

You know, “The Motion Picture” was as close to true hard-sci-fi as “Star Trek” has gotten. And that movie was panned when it came out in 1979 by the mainstream media.

That style would work for the hardcore fans, but it would bore the socks off the non-fans.

A TMP-style movie would bomb at the box office. The same fans would then complain about how the mainstream ignored the movie. And those fans are the ones currently slamming J.J Abrams.

Gotta love Trek fandom. Not.

279. JohnRambo - May 1, 2013

omg….people not seriously argue over this? That is scary!

280. ACJG1985 - May 1, 2013

Slightly off but on topic; what is it with JJ and putting huge stress fractures in the bridge? He did it to the roof in 2009 when the Enterprise was trying to move away from the black hole at warp and now with the floor here

281. HubcapDave - May 1, 2013

#277

I think that had more to do with half the movie being noting more than the crew staring at the viewscreen all slack-jawed……

282. Kev-1 - May 1, 2013

That clip looks like fun. But that “engineering”set isn’t just “Budgineering”, it looks like they have an entire oil refinery down there — Exxon deck. Somebody mentioned “V” as an example of using industrial locations, but in that case, the Visitors had come to Earth specifically to steal our water, so the pipes and valves made perfect sense. I think the pipes were in the alien water storage facility. Anyway the clip moved. Have no idea how this film will do.

283. Vultan - May 1, 2013

Yep. Apparently, according to some there’s no in between with Trek. You can have either the slow thoughtfulness of TMP or the hyper action space operas of JJ Abrams.

Only two flavors left, kids.

284. Red Dead Ryan - May 1, 2013

#279.

Yeah, that was a minor bug for me as well. I think it would have been more interesting to see some bulkheads split at the seams, and hull plating lift up. Or something like that.

The stress fractures made it seem the bridge was made of concrete.

285. Keachick - May 1, 2013

Does a brewery look like an oil refinery?

286. Weerd1 - May 1, 2013

MUST you keep HANGING from things?

J/K, I am all kinds of on board here.

287. Basement Blogger - May 1, 2013

@ 284

Red Dead Ryan,

Just wanted to say keep the list of the guys who pummeled us for deducing BC is Khan. We took a lot of abuse for that. But Aurore doesn’t count because she didn’t abuse us. They questioned our intelligence and called idiots. We could still be wrong but I have no plans for crow recipes still working on my chicken recipes. Because if we’re right, as Harrison would say “We will have our vengeance.” :-)

288. Basement Blogger - May 1, 2013

@ 285

Keachick,

Just wanted to say thanks for backing me up on another thread. Both of us were called names. We disagree on a lot of things. But you take way too much abuse. I’ll try to be nice next time we fight. :-)

289. Crewman Darnell - May 1, 2013

@276. ObsessiveStarTrekFan

“I would say, though, that Asimov makes a distinction between SF books and SF movies at 4:43 to 5:19 in that audio clip, where he is effectively saying in movies you might have to ‘dumb it down’ a bit for a larger audience…”

Big-time. And I think his point on that is even more true today. Though based on some comments I’m reading here, it appears many people believe it’s an all or nothing battle between having either a slow-moving, “thoughtful” TMP experience -or- a flashy, action-packed space opera. Ultimately, it all comes down to the writers; how much balance can be struck between the two. I’m still looking forward to this film, but my impression so far is, the “flashy, action-packed space opera” aspect will greatly outweigh those “thoughtful” elements that are the legacy of Trek.

290. Basement Blogger - May 2, 2013

@ 283

AMEN Vultan! Why can’t there be a smart Star Trek with exciting action? I mean if Inception and District 9 can exist, there can be a Star Trek movie that has mass appeal and still have scientific and philosophical ideas. I thought the recent Oblivion was smart. There’s no need to say we must be one way or the other.

Think of great TOS episodes. Arena. The Doomsday Machine. Big action. Big ideas.

291. GG - May 2, 2013

Seatbelts? Seriously? (sigh)

They look out of place. Especially, in that extra-wide “love seat” they call a Captain’s Chair. That chair is wide enough to seat 2 people. What the hell is a seat belt gonna do to keep you in a chair like that?

As Bones once said, “I know Directors, and they LOVE to change things.”

292. Vultan - May 2, 2013

#290

Exactly. I think TWOK and VH hit the mark, too.

Can Into Darkness do the same? Hopefully, but I kind of doubt it. At least they got a great actor in Cumberbatch to bring things up a notch.

293. Oxford - May 2, 2013

I’ve mentioned this before in a previous thread. From the outside the Enterprise appears to be in a flat spin in the scene where this is happening. If that is the case then the crew are going to be throw towards the outside walls as though they are in a centrifuge.
This is the physics used in a bunch of other Scifi and proposed real spacecraft to simulate gravity when you don’t have the luxury of gravity plating.
I’ve always assumed that inertial dampeners were to reduce this sort of thing to the camera shakes you see in the TV series.

294. DonDonP1 - May 2, 2013

@150 Indeed. There was a deleted scene in that 2002 film where Captain Jean-Luc Picard tried out the Enterprise-E’s new command chair and it came with a seatbelt. Yet, in the “Power Play” episode of “The Next Generation,” Commander William T. Riker, Lt. Commander Data, and Lt. Commander Deanna Troi were wearing seatbelts on a shuttlecraft before a crash.

295. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - May 2, 2013

@150 & @294

I’ve just remembered – ‘seat belts’ were used before Nemesis… In ST:TSFS the bridge crew of the Excelsior engage ‘seat belts’ before the ship attempts (and fails – thanks to Scotty) to engage transwarp drive.

296. Theatre Historian - May 2, 2013

I wonder if Spock Prime, warned JIm to beware of broken or falling Bridges :)

So can’t wait to see this in less than 2 weeks!
Each clip just gets better and more exciting, and I am really loving Giachino’s score.

297. martin - May 2, 2013

@150, @294 @295 – I prefer the built in armrest restaints on the redesigned NCC-1701 in TMP.

298. Lone Browncoat - May 2, 2013

Quit griping, from Day One (1964,The Cage) Trek muddled with physics. The metal Lithium, as spoken in Mudd’s Women became crystals, then Di-Lythium. TOS established deck AG plates but didn’t have the budget but was written in the first “Making Of..” book. In the Bermanverse,,Sternbach went backwards on the Uglyprise TNG manual by having centrally located AG generators, hence one crummy TNG ep where a turbo-lift actually “falls” to create a danger, whereas if it were deckplate based, the TL would just fail to move within the shaft.

There’s Hollywood,then there’s RL. I’m going to enjoy the rollercoaster that this movie will be and not worry about inconsistencies. Though, I would like to mate the Abramprise exterior with the TMP/TWoK interiors eventhough the furniture in the VIP/Officer’s Lounge was just indoor/outdoor carpeting stretched over plywood.

To me, there is TOS, and the TOS movies.
Then there is the Bermanverse.
Now we have the Abramsverse.
If you want more intimate stories, support the New Voyages/Phase II and ST:Continues etc. non-profit groups.
Yeah, the acting can be cheesy, especially from Elvis-Kirk but the CG is as good as CBS Digital now and where else are you going to get your fix?

299. Lone Browncoat - May 2, 2013

Oh, still liking the use of the brewery with new decals as an extension to main engineering, makes me wanna pickup some of that stuff next trip to No Frills.

300. DonDonP1 - May 2, 2013

@297 I love those armrest restaints as well.

301. Devon - May 2, 2013

#290 – “philosophical ideas.” Honestly, as I’m sure you know, this is the most over exaggerated aspect that some fans like touting to make the franchise sound smarter than it ever was. This is old and worn out, and you’d be doing yourself and everyone else big favor if you stopped pretending otherwise anymore.

302. Basement Blogger - May 2, 2013

@ 301

Devon,

WHAT IS STAR TREK?

Let’s see what the creator of Star Trek, some guy named Gene Roddenberry and Leonard Nimoy have to say what the franchise was about.. By the way the 2009 movie was dedicated to Roddenberry so I think the Supreme Court looks to him for inspiration. As John Harrison would say, “Shall we begin.”

Exhibit 1. Gene Roddenberry in defending “The Cage” wrote this about his creation. He wanted a show that would

“combine spectable-excitement for a mass group along with meaningful drama and something of substance and pride.”

http://trekmovie.com/2010/11/30/letter-of-note-gene-roddenberry-defends-star-trek-the-cage-pilot/

Exhibit 2. Leonard Nimoy always something like this. He says Star Trek works on multiple levels. It’s adventure but it was also thought provoking. Look at the video attached at the 5: 40 second mark.

http://trekmovie.com/2011/03/05/video-of-the-day-report-from-1973-star-trek-convention/

3. Conclusion. Star Trek is not Flash Gordon. it’s a science fiction franchise that has adventure and ideas whether they be scientific (Star Trek IV) or philosophical. (TOS: The Devil in the Dark.)

So sorry, Devon. Sue me. I still believe in Star Trek. Boldly Go My Fellow Trekkers.

303. Keachick - May 2, 2013

I think that Star Trek is not seen by some as being deeply philosophical. It has come across as usually well done, but simple, morality plays and only briefly mentioning, touching on the philosophies and people who have played a part in the development of human civilization in terms of arts, sciences, ethical considerations etc.

At least it posed questions, presented simple philosophical concepts to ponder and mentioned names like Aristotle and Plato…nobody else was talking this sort, then or now really.

304. Vultan - May 2, 2013

Well said, BB and Keachick.

305. The Six Million Dollar Underpants - May 2, 2013

The film should have been called,

“To Boldy Go Where No Brewery Has Gone Before….”

306. fubamushu - May 2, 2013

Seriously? The goddamn brewery for engineering again?

Stick a fork in Star Trek. It is done. It’s over Johnny, it’s over.

307. Jonboc - May 2, 2013

I’ll stick a fork in it so I can enjoy another bite! This Trek is looking damn tasty! :)

308. Uncle Protein - May 2, 2013

Seatbelts; really?

First there is the nonsense of the Enterprise travelling underwater, and then we see the bridge crew using seatbelts.

Gonna skip this film and dig-out my TOS DVD’s

309. Ken - May 2, 2013

I have read alot of everyones reactions to this clip and i sat back and was amused by them. Yes i dont like the fact that they used the brewery scenes again but it kinda does give it a more realistic touch. The cracking of the bridge was a nice touch because the floor isnt just made with deck plating. The seatbelts are a little wierd but hey if it works! I love the scene showing the bald woman on the bridge. These clips kinda seem that JJ has implimented a couple different ST movies for example look at admiral pikes uniform, Harrison may or may not be Khan and the deltan on the bridge!

I watched an interview with JJ and he explained why his version of trek was different and he knew that die hard fans would be upset but again this is his version of what trek is. I for one like this version and i hope that they will be able to return trek to television where it belongs!!

310. PaulB - May 2, 2013

So, Spock can get from the shuttlebay to the bridge in seconds using a turbolift (Trek’09), but there are miles of stairways and catwalks in engineering with NO faster way of getting around? More idiotic design–or rather, “Hey, it’s cool but stupid!” design.

Like the first film, this one is sure to be a great rollercoaster ride, but it would be nice if they had at least a LITTLE intelligence behind the Enterprise’s interiors.

Maybe if Abrams would lay off the lens flares and pay attention to logic…

311. Ted C - May 2, 2013

That engine room is just terrible. Just just terrible. One second they are in a sleek 23rd century starship and the next they are in a present day factory. Instantly took me out of the scene.

The ST:TMP through III Enterprise was so much better.

312. PaulB - May 2, 2013

#311 – Exactly! The contrast between the bridge and engineering is jarring and throws me out of the scene. One minute, I’m in a spaceship and along for the ride. Next minute, I’m watching two guys running and climbing through an endless maze of catwalks in a brewery with steam venting and lights flickering.

I think Abrams really wants to use the rebel blockade runner one minute and the Nostromo the next, instead of showing us the frakking ENTERPRISE. His franchise envy is showing.

313. Do You Wanna Dance - May 2, 2013

If Chekov is dead in STID, I’m gonna be upset. Who’s in his chair on the bridge?

314. Owildeman - May 2, 2013

Can we just stop “fighting” about an imaginary ship’s gavititational system and whining about the engine room? I mean. Stop.

315. Crewman Darnell - May 2, 2013

@311 (and) 312

Those observations are a large part of my own negative issues with the J.J. “vision.” Case in point, an old friend of mine used to work at a beer brewery and often gave my friends and I tours, “after-hours.” We weren’t special. The same brewery used to host public tours on a daily basis. The brewing vats are SO obvious as to rip me out of the last movie. Like I said before, what’s next? Maybe J.J. will reveal the warp-drive engines to be an industrial washer/dryer location. It’s so ridiculous. Are people so easily amused??

316. Red Dead Ryan - May 2, 2013

#308.

Really? You’re going to skip the movie over seat belts and the Enterprise going underwater?

Sheesh, some of you are acting like spoiled little five year old street bums!

LOL!

317. pock speared - May 2, 2013

I am a rabid fan of the new engineering.

In the previous film, there was a connection between the corvette and the Enterprise (and an even bigger one now, as they both seem doomed to fall) as they both shared elegant design and the aesthetics of the 1960′s. The “brain” of the bridge was nicely juxtaposed to the more industrial look of lower decks.

I once worked on the U.S.S. Intrepid (the floating museum) in New York. We would often go down decks and I was always fascinated by the way the structure was built to around form and function.

J.J.’s vision is one of realism.

If most haters were not aware that a brewery was the original set, I doubt they would be so very outraged by it.

318. rogue_alice - May 2, 2013

Fred Astaire and Lionel Richie danced on the ceilings too.

319. Frederick - May 2, 2013

In the clips I’ve seen, Pine is behaving in ways we never saw Kirk do. For example, Kirk would never have yelled and fumed and threatened an enemy like Pine did Cumby in the brig scene. He was always cooler than that, psyching out the enemy. Even when passionate about something, as he often was, he was in control.

Also the scene where Pine shouts, “Spock, we’re talking about your life here!” rang hollow. Shatner knew how to communicate emotion without screaming (unless he was under some strange influence like beign a double or with amnesia.)

Shatner made Kirk rivieting to watch with his laser-intensity, not yelling and screaming. Still, Pine is the best replacement we could have gotten. He just needs to learn from Shatner some, when he was at his best. Not third season.

320. HubcapDave - May 2, 2013

#319

I suggest you re-watch “The Omega Glory”, particularly the scene where Kirk flips out on Captain Tracy.

321. Phil - May 2, 2013

Wow. A lot of people venting about…a movie set. A question for those complaining – you seem to be going on about how engineering doesn’t ‘look’ like engineering, yet on TOS all we saw was engineering control and Jefferies tubes (phaser control and life support shown in a couple of episodes). On what basis are you making this comparison? From TNG on, engineering did have an industrial look to it, was that an assault on Trek sensibilities as well?

Kindly…

322. martin - May 2, 2013

#319. Yes. Shatner never yelled at Khan. Didn’t yell loud enough you could hear it through a Moon.

323. martin - May 2, 2013

@321 – I agree. Where did all those Pipes go in the back of the main engineering set? To the Kegs!

324. Frederick - May 2, 2013

Kirk was yelling at Khan as a ruse. He knew he wasn’t trapped on the moon. He was making Khan think he was. Psych.

325. PaulB - May 2, 2013

#321 – As many of us have repeatedly pointed out, the problem with the brewery-engine room is that it so completely unlike everything else we see inside the nuEnterprise. On TOS, engineering had plenty of pipes and such, but they all shared the same design principles as the rest of the ship: it looked like a cohesive vessel, which added to the realism–made it easier to suspend disbelief and accept it as a “real” ship.

In nuTrek, it looks like a movie set one minute and then like a brewery the next. The vast disconnect between the visuals is the big problem because–again, as we’ve repeatedly said around here–it throws us out of the movie. The suspension of disbelief gets shocked by the sudden appearance of a REAL brewery: it points out that these are sets and locations, points out “hey, this is all fake.”

It makes the show look like Red Dwarf’s cheapest seasons. I almost expect to see Holly on a display behind Kirk and Scotty in this clip.

The industrial look isn’t the problem. The real-world-location-we-all-recognize-instantly look is a problem. The nothing-like-the-rest-of-the-ship look is a problem.

326. JohnRambo - May 2, 2013

NEW CLIP!!!

http://www.traileraddict.com/clip/star-trek-into-darkness/ears-burning

327. HubcapDave - May 2, 2013

#325

While Budgineering isn’t my favorite part of nuTrek, I understand and accept the cost cutting practicalities of it.

At least they managed to cover the windows and they aren’t having chase scenes in it with floor polishers…….(name that reference!)

328. trekmaster78 - May 2, 2013

@#159

I do not understand what personal insults (yo call me “coward”? – do we know each other!?!?) have to do with the topic.

329. HubcapDave - May 2, 2013

#326

Oh my, that was funny!

330. Tippy Hedren - May 2, 2013

I don’t understand why the whole ship begins sideways as they run through the hall, then suddenly they are in engineering and gravity is fine again as they run on catwalks normally and the ship seems to start the whole tipping process over again. Makes me think they re-ordered the sequence, with the original being Kirk & Scotty starting in engineering and then running into the hallways as the ship continued to tip.

331. Phil - May 2, 2013

@326. Dear god, that was funny……

332. Phil - May 2, 2013

@330. Editing. That’s not the full sequence.

333. Undiscovered Latin Gay Male Trek Character - May 2, 2013

@326

Unless their relationship has really evolved, I don’t believe Uhura would confide in Kirk like this. I hope there’s more to it, then just what’s in this clip, otherwise that put “T” in “trite.”

334. Tippy Hedren - May 2, 2013

@333
Do you believe that Kirk would whine like an emotional schoolgirl about his own relationship with Spock?

335. Undiscovered Latin Gay Male Trek Character - May 2, 2013

@334. No, I don’t. Especially not to Uhura. “Pull his bangs.” Really?!

336. HubcapDave - May 2, 2013

#333

Well, they’ve had a year to work on it, and he does save her boyfriend from the volcano………

337. Undiscovered Latin Gay Male Trek Character - May 2, 2013

#336
Let’s hope that’s what it is and it comes across well, otherwise, ugh.

338. RBanks - May 2, 2013

The brewery used as an engineering set looks fine to me.

Besides, one set, does not a movie make…

As for the malfunctioning artificial gravity, well, the scene was exciting and had me on the edge of my seat. That’s all I really require of it. So far, this film looks and sounds awesome.

Only thing I’m frustrated about is the fact that it’s not May the 17th yet.

339. smike - May 2, 2013

While I do NOT like the brewery set because it doesn’t look like a typical Trek engineering set, it does NOT destroy suspension of disbelieve within the new film franchise. It’s just a different, and not so aesthetically pleasing, way of depicting the engines of a starship. I just miss the central warp core, the cozy atmosphere of TOS-TNG-VOY-ENT engineering.

I like to believe these huge tanks and pipes that are part of budgineering are different sections of those engine decks, sections we haven’t seen in any of the other installments. But the familiar warp core is just what I want to have at the center of things…

340. Basement Blogger - May 2, 2013

@ 301

One more thing. The the released (Trekmovie link) and the IMAX nine minutes feature a conflict about the Prime Directive. Remember that the Supreme Court wanted to go deeper this time. Plus there’s another idea bouncing around in the movie that the star talk about and that’s terrorism. So no matter what I think the Supreme Court is injecting “philosophy” into the new movie.

The Prime Directive has always been a fascinating concept in Star Trek. I think it’s because Roddenberry was upset with American involvement in Viet Nam. But could we go even further as far as superpower meddling . The Spanish conquest of the Incas, perhaps? Would love to see someone here post a link to the policy behind the Prime Directive.

Trekmovie story; Clip, save Spock or obey the Prime Directive?
http://trekmovie.com/2013/04/22/watch-first-clip-from-star-trek-into-darkness/

341. Randy H. - May 2, 2013

#321

“Wow. A lot of people venting about…a movie set.”

One might as well say “Wow, a lot of people discussing a movie and TV series”. Of course we should vent – the continued choice of an oversized industrial property for a starship’s engineering section is baffling to many of us. Apologists aside, as has been said ample times here there is no real justification for the stylistic choices made in the engineering “set”. It is just the sad triumph of “this looks cool” over “this makes sense”. And I like my Trek to make sense.

342. Leo R. - May 2, 2013

I have to admit that I have been leary about this film, especially since I know what its about and how it ends. After viewing this clip, I actually can’t wait to see Star Trek Into Darkness. Whether hardcore Trek fans like it or not, I’m thankful to have a film with science fiction and a ship in space, at this point, since we see very little of that whether in film or television.

343. HubcapDave - May 2, 2013

#341

It’s more “this will save us money” than anything else.

344. Randy H. - May 2, 2013

#340 – check out Memory Alpha for the article on the Prime Directive. (I rather like it, since I drafted most of it) http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Prime_Directive

345. Curious Cadet - May 2, 2013

@321 Phil / 325 PaulB,
“on TOS all we saw was engineering control and Jefferies tubes (phaser control and life support shown in a couple of episodes)” / “the problem with the brewery-engine room is that it so completely unlike everything else we see inside the nuEnterprise”.

May I respectfully submit that the key lies in Phil’s astute observation. TOS presented the engineering section as an iconic set. Who here doesn’t fondly recall Scott clinging to the grillwork of the large viewing port overlooking the presumed impulse engine bay? I have no idea what that set piece was intended to be, but it doesn’t matter, it defined engineering for me. Despite intentionally giving us a nostalgic plethora of iconic images in the new films, from the uniforms to the sets, Abrams has eschewed that for engineering in favor of something generic and forgettable. Yet there was a reason the engineering set on TMP was one of the most impressive and memorable sets in the entire franchise. And as PaulB aptly observes, there is an alarming disparity between the industrial set of engineering and everything else. It’s visually incongruous to say the least.

However, I would personally be happy if Abrams simply transitioned us into the industrial set. It’s not hard to believe behind the bulkheads in the TOS set lurked the industrial space we see in Abrams’ engineering section. Imagine had Scotty opened a hatch in TOS engineering and descended into an industrial plant? That would be a much more satisfying transition than simply cutting from the high tech bridge to the low-tech engineering without explanation.

Apologies if this duplicates a much more lengthy response which appears to have disappeared after I posted it.

346. Legend of Link - May 2, 2013

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0QLWMLhfUY

New clip of Kirk and Uhura. Check it out!

347. Curious Cadet - May 2, 2013

@364 Legen of Link,

Wow, so much immature inappropriate unprofessional behavior going in there. Not so much a complaint as that’s who Kirk is at this point in his brief career — just an observation.

And Kirk has white walls! Yikes.

348. Phil - May 2, 2013

@345. For me, it adds texture to the bigger Trek universe. I was a structural buy back when we still built buildings, I enjoy seeing that, but if it wasn’t there I’d be okay with that, too. I can understanding people not liking it, but some of the vitriol that’s being spewed is just off the charts….

349. Keachick - May 2, 2013

“Oversized industrial property”?

The problem with using the brewery is that it looks too big to be part of a starship. It is not the design per se, just how it is made to look size wise on the Enterprise. I guess it may be shown this way to give a viewer an idea of just how big this ship is. I keep thinking that part of it will break out of the hull, because, in this case, it won’t fit…

350. Phil - May 2, 2013

@341. There have been plenty of justifications, explanations, and examples made for how it looks. If you just made it a preference, or an opinion no one would be taking you to task for it – I don’t like that is just as valid an opinion as I love it, and it doesn’t require justification. However, when you say baffled, or makes no sense, those are head scratchers. I understand that a starship, as an enclosed system, needs to provide water for the crew, to generate and clean an air supply, to generate power, to store raw materials, to recycle waste, to transport and store that waste, and so on, and when they show a representation of that, that makes perfect sense. Hey, if you are okay with a box in a room with a glowing light on it that’s labeled ‘life support’, that’s fine, too. Expressing a preference doesn’t necessarily make one better then the other. Heck, I still get a kick out of Robbie the Robot, that doesn’t mean I hate Commander Data…

351. Curious Cadet - May 2, 2013

Re: Seatbelts

Three questions:

1) where did they come from?

2) how are the red chairs attached to the deck so that the Seatbelts would even be effective? They always seemd unfixed like the original TOS chairs.

3) is there anything that isn’t branded with the damn delta symbol in Abrams’ universe? On the seatbelt buckles … really?

352. Curious Cadet - May 2, 2013

Ok, four questions:

4) has anyone actually confirmed with Bad Robots that these are in fact Seatbelts and not something else?

Take a look at the person sitting over Spock’s left shoulder — not only does the chair appear to be a four-footed pedestal type not attached to anything, but you can see the back of the harness which appears above the low-backed chairs. I’m not sure what if anything that harness is attached to, or whether it’s having any restraining effect at all.

Still I’m not sure what else it would be doing …

353. Disinvited - May 2, 2013

# 278. Red Dead Ryan – May 1, 2013

“A TMP-style movie would bomb at the box office.” – Red Dead Ryan

Well, TMP itself did have a run at the box-office and it took in $170 million dollars world-wide before its run was complete in spite of Paramount suits trying to cover their Phase II waffling money wasting a$$e$ by retconning it to be something other than it was.

Steven Soderbergh gave an “State of Cinema” address recently:

provideocoalition.com/eescobar/story/steven-soderberghs-state-of-cinema-2013

where he had some thoughts on that:

“5) Executives Don’t Get Punished, Filmmakers Do: When a film bombs, it is the fault of the filmmakers. There is no turnover in the executive offices, the artists are just replaced with new artists and the machine learns nothing. There is no support of a filmmaker over his or her career. No talent development strategy so that a filmmaker grows by trying ideas, making mistakes and triumphs, learning from the experiences and becoming a better filmmaker. It is opening weekend numbers and end-product profits perspective. This is killing Cinema in the Movies.”

354. Trekbilly - May 2, 2013

The main thing is — there’s no way budgineering would even FIT in that ship! In that scene with Kirk and Scotty falling off the catwalk, it looks like the Death Star chasm beneath them — it seems to go on forever!!
This is right up there with the 75 decks gaffe in STV!

Budgineering is ugly…doesn’t fit with the design of the rest of the ship and doesn’t even fit inside the ship!

With previous Enterprises, all the sets made sense at least!

355. Keachick - May 2, 2013

Budgineering does fit inside the ship. It is just that you get the feeling sometimes by looking at it from the scenes showing that it might burst out at any point…

It is a fear, an illusion I can live with…:)

356. Keachick - May 2, 2013

Perhaps that is why the ship has those “ample” nacelles, for the time when budgineering sends forth her “wee bairns”…

357. Jonboc - May 2, 2013

The brewery was featured prominantly in the last movie and guess what? It was not, in any shape or form, a deal breaker. The movie was a HUGE success. Millions of people loved it and it put Trek back on the map. The brewery remains in this movie, as it should be…to be consistent with the first. And again…the brewery is a non-issue for most. People are loving it, it’s looking great and this movie is, without a doubt, one of the “must see” films of the summer. Hate on the brewery all you want, it isn’t going to change anything. :)

358. Phil - May 2, 2013

Again, what is with this stream of thought about the sets ‘making sense’… a starship is an enclosed ecosystem, so it needs to provide water for the crew, to generate and clean an air supply, to generate power, to store raw materials, to recycle waste, to transport and store that waste, manufacture replacement parts, turn that power into propulsion, etc…., and when they show a representation of that, that makes perfect sense. I know I’m repeating myself and if you prefer that your engineering be a room that contains a box labeled ‘life support’ on it, with a couple of flashing lights to make it look all future-y, you’re entitled to that opinion. Just like I’m entitled to enjoy what it actually is. If box with flashing lights was how JJ chose to go, I’d still enjoy the movie either way. It’s not a deal breaker…

359. Keachick - May 2, 2013

The engineering section in some of the TOS TV episodes did not make sense. Some scenes, supposedly showing the Enterprise’s lower decks, were just empty rooms where Kirk and Kirk or Kirk and somebody could duke it out…:)

360. CoffeeProf - May 3, 2013

Funny thing is…most of you wouldn’t even have known it was a brewery if you hadn’t been told it was.

361. PaulB - May 3, 2013

#360 – Not true. Anybody who’s every seen a brewery would recognize it instantly. People with me at the film asked about it afterwards.

Then again, most of you thought Prometheus was a smart film and TNG was exciting, so…CoffeeProf might be right.

362. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - May 3, 2013

@361. PaulB

Gee, I didn’t realise visiting breweries was such a popular pasttime…

I certainly didn’t recognise it. I didn’t realise it was a brewery until I read about it.

Then again, I’m teetotal, so that may have something to do with it. I have visited a tea plantation ;-)

363. Commodore Redshirt - May 3, 2013

To all the people who discount the “physics” of this… according to the science we understand today, the whole thing is impossible. There is no such thing as a “warp drive” or a “phaser” or “artificial gravity”… it is FICTION and arguing that JJ is “ignoring physics” while accepting the idea of faster-than-light space travel is silly.

I think this looks fantastic. It looks fun, and I will be in the IMAX to watch it.

364. Phil - May 3, 2013

@360. Word. Preach it, brother….

365. Disinvited - May 3, 2013

#363. Commodore Redshirt – May 3, 2013

“…the whole thing is impossible.” – Commodore Redshirt

The problem with taking an extreme position such as you have there is that one only has to provide one counter example of something not impossible in STAR TREK to disprove it.

Whole body medical scanner (see MRI)

PADD computing devices.

Voice recognition queries and voice response data retrieval computing (see WATSON & Siri)

Wireless earpiece to computer interface (see Bluetooth)

Replicators (see BubbleJet printer inorganic and organic parts “printing”.)

etc.

366. Trekbilly - May 3, 2013

#355 Keachick — Well, I guess physics operate differently in NZ! I guess everything has a Tardis-like interior down there!

Well, the Enterprise is not a Tardis and the only way Budgineeribg would fit is if you dedicated the entire secondary hull to it!

Oh, but wait…that’s not possible because in the JJverse, the SHUTTLE bay takes up all that! There’s no way Budgineering fits in the saucer or the dorsal! So, tell me again where that mile deep engineering section fits again?

See what I mean?

Crazy…((shakes head AND rolls eyes))

Having said that, I can still enjoy the film…while knowing damned well JJ screwed up engineering!

367. Keachick - May 3, 2013

Is there any scene where parts of this alt. enterprise engineering has burst through the hull, because it won’t fit?…:)

Answer – No.

Then again, this Enterprise does have “ample” nacelles…:)

Actually, it is interesting to consider what I would call the “Tardis effect”. I looked at the empty room of my house and wondered how all the furniture could fit. The room simply appeared too small, until I came to move the furniture in and it did fit. Something to do with perception…

368. Trekbilly - May 3, 2013

HAHAHAHA!!! Keachick, you are funny!! LOL!!

369. Fubamushu - May 4, 2013

I don’t have a problem with the fact that they chose to use a brewery as the basis for the set. They could have used the inside of a dildo factory for all I care. It isn’t about knowing what location or place was used for a particular set.

For me, the problems are:
1.) The set still looks like an earthbound factory built in the 20th century. Nothing about the set looks futuristic. If anything, it looks anachronistic.
2.) The look of the set is inconsistent with the look of the other interior sets. From glossy white and shiny plastic and glass with nary a pipe or tube or cable to be found to grungy and metallic with cables and pipes everywhere. From confined, purposeful space to wide open space with huge ceilings.
3.) The size of the set is absurd and consumes too much space. Just how many decks and how much length does this engineering use?

370. Disinvited - May 5, 2013

“Star trek tech
If you’ve spent much time on the Starship Enterprise, you’ll recognize that many of its 23rd-century devices are materializing in our hands.”:

http://www.usaweekend.com/article/20130503/TECH02/305030006/J-J-Abrams-Star-Trek-tech

“It’s unbelievable! If you had told me when I was a kid that there would ever be something at an office in which I worked that could print out a 3-D spaceship model, I would have never stopped following you around asking you questions about how to get it and where does it come from.” – director J.J. Abrams

“Abrams is talking about a 3-D printer in his studio in Santa Monica, Calif., one that helped him make his latest movie, STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS. It’s a piece of advanced technology that you, too, may soon have.

In fact, it’s another case of Trek and tech colliding.” – Mike Snider, USA WEEKEND, p 6

371. ewares - May 9, 2013

Nice post. I used to be checking constantly this weblog and I am inspired! Very useful info specifically the closing part :) I take care of such information much. I was seeking this certain info for a long time. Thanks and best of luck.

372. Hardy - May 21, 2013

I enjoyed the first two thirds of the movie very much and would rate it around 70%. This is one of the scenes that left a sour taste and makes it seem like the writers try to make Star Trek more appealing to folks who believe that you can survive in a falling elevator by jumping up the moment it crushes into the ground. It’s just a silly, silly scene that offends anyone who expects some scientific consistency instead of fast & furious randomness.

373. Hardy - May 21, 2013

It could have been easily sanitized by linking it to the context of an out-of control propulsion of one of the warp-engines or maybe a tumbling gravity-generator instead of freefall in earth’s gravitational field. But it wasn’t, which makes it look cheap for Star Trek standards.

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.