Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis and Poster Revealed

[Nutso]

Interesting...I got the link from an article on imdb.com....which is also no longer there, lol, I guess it's not supposed to be out yet.

Well you haven't missed much, there isn't anything "new" really, just more half second action cuts from the movie giving nothing away storywise with ominous narration and lot's of punching.

Like a Batman trailer?

[LaughingCheese]

Well....the extended preview in Imax version of The Hobbit, that will clear up a lot of things about the water scene.

Since spoilers aren't working I won't post it yet..

Someone was asking about Abramsverse Miranda, I don't know if this is considered a Miranda class vessel (its called the Mayflower) but it looks almost exactly like it:

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/scans/trekxi1.htm

(Scroll down to "Other Federation Ships" as the site doesn't allow hotlinking.)

Also, howdy and long time no see.

[Jim]

That was me. Thanks for the link to the pictures.

I like the Abrams E better than the original E, but I like the original Miranda better than the Mayflower. The angular rear section of the disk on te original gives it character. THe Mayflower just seems to lack something.

[LaughingCheese]

That was me. Thanks for the link to the pictures.

I like the Abrams E better than the original E, but I like the original Miranda better than the Mayflower. The angular rear section of the disk on te original gives it character. THe Mayflower just seems to lack something.

I think the look of the new Abrams ships is more industrial, I mean the pre Enterprise ships like the Kelvin and the one I linked. I would like to see the Enterprise look more like that.

I disliked the new E as well but its grown on me a little (actually I never cared for the original look, too plain, I much like the refit Constitution), altho I still think the warp nacelles have too many organic shapes. And what's with all the blue??

I can't stand the interiors tho, too flippin shiny. You'd need to wear sun glasses to go anywhere!

At least the hull is a nice color, not the plain white like in TOS.




Also, is the E still Constitution class? Memory alpha assumes it is but it was never mentioned in the movie.

[Teaos]

They dont give most trek ships class names, what we call them is mostly fanon based on the first ship we see of that class.

By that logic it is a Enterprise class.

[Captain Seafort]

They dont give most trek ships class names, what we call them is mostly fanon based on the first ship we see of that class.

Hardly. The Connie is from Space Seed, as is the GCS is from EaF, the Neb is from The Wounded, the Defiant and Ex are explicitly the first of their classes. Most of the others we never see the class ship (Miranda, Akira, Norway, Steamrunner, etc). The only ship I can think of named for the first seen is the Centaur.

[Nutso]

If they do include a story about Khan in the future, you guys think Javier Bardem would make a good Khan?

[Tsukiyumi]

If they do include a story about Khan in the future, you guys think Javier Bardem would make a good Khan?

That's a great choice.

[Captain Seafort]

Guess who's still sulking

I'm not someone who customarily judges the book by its cover. I am well aware that movies are usually not as lurid as their trailers. Still, the first trailer for "Star Trek Into Darkness" creates expectations that I don't like at all. It borrows heavily from other action and fantasy franchises, rather than from previous Trek movies, and it puts much emphasis on the villain's vengeance and his trail of destruction. While I had many issues with how J.J. Abrams handled the reboot in "Star Trek (2009)", my apprehension is that there will be even less Star Trek spirit in the upcoming movie, perhaps except for some unnecessary namedropping.

While the course of the story and the identity of the villain is mere speculation, one technical aspect is already evident in the trailer and in the IMAX preview. The Enterprise (alt.) is built to operate under water. This may not seem like a big deal, considering that the stress on the hull at warp is possibly much higher than under the sea. Still, the concept of the submerged Enterprise is flawed, if not childish. The intention was apparently to enrich the movie with a James Bond-like gimmick, also considering that underwater CG effects look still cooler than those in space.

Anyway, if we believe in the published size figures for a moment, the ship is some 170m tall. This means that to be useful as a submarine it would require a corresponding water depth to start with, and the bottom of the engineering hull would have to withstand as much as 17atm. Sure, there is nothing that enhanced forcefields couldn't accomplish in the world of Star Trek. But that's only one of several additional features that would have to go into the design of the ship, others being a suited propulsion system (impulse engine under water - bad idea!) and special sensors such as sonar. And everything just for the very unlikely scenario that the captain feels like going down with his ship and crew. Not to mention that hiding a 725m behemoth may work in the open sea but would be a ludicrous idea near the coast. There is a good reason for spaceships and submarines being radically different designs in real engineering. And even if 23rd century technology may allow to build starships like Swiss Army knives, they should still remain where they belong - in space.

There are a couple of rather large problems with this analysis:

It borrows heavily from other action and fantasy franchises, rather than from previous Trek movies, and it puts much emphasis on the villain's vengeance and his trail of destruction.

Does sound at all like any other Trek movie does it?

The Enterprise (alt.) is built to operate under water.

How exactly he got this from the trailer I don't know. We saw a ship that may be the Enterprise emerging from the ocean. We do not know the circumstances of this event, so immediately jumping to the conclusion that the ship is designed to operate in that environment is idiotic. It's more likely that Kirk took her down there to hide, and Scotty complained vociferously about it before finding a solution.

[Graham Kennedy]

Is he still sulking over the new Enterprise being so big?

[Captain Seafort]

Well the original article's still up, including this little gem:

Everyone has to agree with me that, if we base our estimation just on the picture with the relative sizes, the true length of the new ship has to be much closer to 302m (my original assumption) than to 725m, and that Church's size of 366m works well. The 725m version is undeniably totally out of proportion.

In any event, the fact that he's using the actual size of the ship in his piece on the trailer rather than his 300-odd metre version leads me to suspect that he knows it's that big, he just doesn't want to admit it. As for the sulking, I think it's got to the stage that he hates the Abramsverse on principle and that's colouring his judgement.

[Jim]

Why would the enterprise being able to pooerate underwater such a stretch? Would the impulse engines work underwater? That would be the only possible issue. Didn't Voyager go into fluidic space? Wasn't there an episode of TAS with a water planet? I seem to remember another fluid planet...

Air tight, structural integrety, etc etc etc... as long as impulse works I do not see an issue with going through water.

[stitch626]

IIRC the Delta Flyer only needed modifications so its impulse drive didn't interfere with the planet. So there is nothing to suggest any normal ship couldn't do it.

[McAvoy]

We are talking about a ship that operates in space, handles alot of stress and has SIF when needed. I don't see a problem here. Only how it moves would be a big question when under water.

I do have a problem with the size of the ship too. But I also have a problem with the look of it too.

[Atekimogus]

Well what we see from the trailer it doesn't really move in water, it crashes into it and then rises out of it. Considering that there are no impulse engines at the bottom of the ship one can assume that it achieves lift by some sort of anti-gravity-device. So clearly the ship can somehow negate it's own weight without engines and for steering you have more or less conventional thrusters which should work to a degree also in water.

If the ship needed it's main impulse/warp engine to achieve lift they would have built her verticaly in drydock like a conventional rocket or similar to how a space shuttle launches into space.