J.J. Abrams' Star Trek

[Qrazy]

A radial coordinate. Basically, it tells you how far away from the singularity you are.


It doesn't. It's all made up. As I said, these pictures are for isolated black holes. That is, this is what the universe would look like if there was nothing in it except a black hole (and a white hole...and those other black holes and white holes). To get a realistic picture, you'd have to cut out chunks of these diagrams and stitch them into other diagrams. Our current model for the universe (with the big bang at the beginning) is based on the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker spacetime. I can't seem to find a useful diagram for that one.

Ah ok.

You've mentioned some different black hole types. Any idea what type the one at the center of the Milky Way (http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2003/0203long/) is?

[Melville]

What does it mean to be at the end of spacetime?
Everything that goes there gets crushed to a point. There's not much else to it. You can think of it as a point in space that traces out a curve over time...but because gravity is so strong, time and space kind of switch (i.e. think of the classic philosophical problem, "why can we move in any direction in space, but not in time?" Because gravity is so strong near the singularity, we can't move in any direction in "space"--we can only move toward the singularity. Thus, "time" and "space" reverse roles. Kind of. But not really.), so the point traces out a curve over space.


On a tangent do you know much about theories of 'empty space'? What is this nothingness that matter is drifting around in?
That's much more of a philosophical question than a scientific question. In other words, I have no idea. In General Relativity, spacetime (there isn't really separate space) is basically just a bunch of points with certain geometric relationships between them.


Ah ok.

You've mentioned some different black hole types. Any idea what type the one at the center of the Milky Way (http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2003/0203long/) is?
Nobody knows. The common belief is that most galaxies have supermassive (like a billion times heavier than the Sun) black holes at the center, but they're not all that well studied yet. A black hole should tend to get "spun up" (as well as getting bigger) as matter falls into it, so the ones at centers of galaxies would be very quickly rotating. I'm not sure if people think they're also charged.

[Qrazy]

Everything that goes there gets crushed to a point. There's not much else to it. You can think of it as a point in space that traces out a curve over time...but because gravity is so strong, time and space kind of switch (i.e. think of the classic philosophical problem, "why can we move in any direction in space, but not in time?" Because gravity is so strong near the singularity, we can't move in any direction in "space"--we can only move toward the singularity. Thus, "time" and "space" reverse roles. Kind of. But not really.), so the point traces out a curve over space.

How small is this point? Asymptotic to infinity? What theoretically happens to all of the matter that gets crushed in there? Are the atoms themselves broken down? Does it all get jettisoned out the white hole?


That's much more of a philosophical question than a scientific question. In other words, I have no idea. In General Relativity, spacetime (there isn't really separate space) is basically just a bunch of points with certain geometric relationships between them.

Well yeah I wasn't sure there was much scientific theory on that one but what you just said does clarify the current conception somewhat.


Nobody knows. The common belief is that most galaxies have supermassive (like a billion times heavier than the Sun) black holes at the center, but they're not all that well studied yet. A black hole should tend to get "spun up" (as well as getting bigger) as matter falls into it, so the ones at centers of galaxies would be very quickly rotating. I'm not sure if people think they're also charged.

What does charge entail for black holes? Just that they can be positively or negatively electromagnetically charged?

[Melville]

How small is this point? Asymptotic to infinity? What theoretically happens to all of the matter that gets crushed in there? Are the atoms themselves broken down?
Are you talking about in pure General Relativity, or in theories of quantum gravity that try to reconcile GR with Quantum Field Theory? In pure General Relativity, the point is a zero-dimensional mathematical point. However, because the strength of gravity is infinite at that point, you'd exclude if from spacetime proper and instead treat it as a boundary of spacetime. You can only ever talk about what happens at some finite distance from that boundary, never what happens exactly at it (so, yeah, we're talking about asymptotically infinitely small rather than exactly point-like). All matter gets crushed (including atoms, though there aren't really atoms in GR, because they can only be described in quantum mechanics).

But the thing is, once we start talking about really small objects, we know that we're using the wrong theory. General Relativity only works for large objects. So really, the singularity at the center of a black hole labels the absolute breakdown of the theory. Near the singularity, a theory of quantum gravity needs to be used. Right now, there are lots of competing theories, none of which have any empirical evidence supporting them, and none of which even have many (if any) concrete, verifiable (or falsifiable) predictions. As far as I know (which isn't very far), the common belief is that in these theories (or in the successful one), the singularity would be replaced by a bunch of finite "cells" of some very small size (things aren't inside the cell---it's a fundamental, indivisible block). As matter falls toward that cell, it presumably gets stripped apart into a plasma of fundamental particles (so atoms would get stripped into quarks and leptons), which are basically just excitations of quantum fields. These excitations would eventually reside "in" the cells of spacetime where we would normally think of the singularity being.


Does it all get jettisoned out the white hole?
Are you talking about the matter that got crushed as it approached the singularity in the black hole? No, that matter is gone for good. It adds to the mass and spin of the black hole.


What does charge entail for black holes? Just that they can be positively or negatively electromagnetically charged?
It means that the black hole has an electric charge (and hence induces an electromagnetic field throughout spacetime), but because the geometry of spacetime reacts to the presence of energy, the electromagnetic energy alters the structure of the black hole. This changes the position of the event horizon, but it also creates a wormhole. In the interior of the black hole, there's a second horizon, beyond which the charge basically induces repulsive gravity, which makes time and space reverse roles again, and opens up a white hole at the "other side".

[MadMan]

...

I liked when Kirk ate the apple. It was funny.So did I. Very much something Kirk would do. I like that we finally got to see him cheating the Kobayashi Maru scenario (well according to him he merely "Changed the rules" :lol: ).

[Sxottlan]

http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/bhtalk_07/penrose_rn.gif

My cat's breath smells like cat food.

[Qrazy]

Are you talking about in pure General Relativity, or in theories of quantum gravity that try to reconcile GR with Quantum Field Theory? In pure General Relativity, the point is a zero-dimensional mathematical point. However, because the strength of gravity is infinite at that point, you'd exclude if from spacetime proper and instead treat it as a boundary of spacetime. You can only ever talk about what happens at some finite distance from that boundary, never what happens exactly at it (so, yeah, we're talking about asymptotically infinitely small rather than exactly point-like). All matter gets crushed (including atoms, though there aren't really atoms in GR, because they can only be described in quantum mechanics).

Is the strength of gravity infinite at the singularity for all black holes or just approaching infinity as they grow? That is to say is the strength of gravity different at the singularity in relation to the size of the black hole, in relation to something else or are all singularities infinite?


But the thing is, once we start talking about really small objects, we know that we're using the wrong theory. General Relativity only works for large objects. So really, the singularity at the center of a black hole labels the absolute breakdown of the theory. Near the singularity, a theory of quantum gravity needs to be used. Right now, there are lots of competing theories, none of which have any empirical evidence supporting them, and none of which even have many (if any) concrete, verifiable (or falsifiable) predictions. As far as I know (which isn't very far), the common belief is that in these theories (or in the successful one), the singularity would be replaced by a bunch of finite "cells" of some very small size (things aren't inside the cell---it's a fundamental, indivisible block). As matter falls toward that cell, it presumably gets stripped apart into a plasma of fundamental particles (so atoms would get stripped into quarks and leptons), which are basically just excitations of quantum fields. These excitations would eventually reside "in" the cells of spacetime where we would normally think of the singularity being.

Interesting.


Are you talking about the matter that got crushed as it approached the singularity in the black hole? No, that matter is gone for good. It adds to the mass and spin of the black hole.

So it's redistributed as quarks and leptons or what exactly inhabits a blackhole? For the most part just the original atoms that were sucked in and have not reached the singularity yet?


It means that the black hole has an electric charge (and hence induces an electromagnetic field throughout spacetime), but because the geometry of spacetime reacts to the presence of energy, the electromagnetic energy alters the structure of the black hole. This changes the position of the event horizon, but it also creates a wormhole. In the interior of the black hole, there's a second horizon, beyond which the charge basically induces repulsive gravity, which makes time and space reverse roles again, and opens up a white hole at the "other side".

Awesome.

[Melville]

Is the strength of gravity infinite at the singularity for all black holes or just approaching infinity as they grow? That is to say is the strength of gravity different at the singularity in relation to the size of the black hole, in relation to something else or are all singularities infinite?
The strength of gravity at the singularity is always infinite. The strength of gravity outside the singularity depends on the mass "contained" in the singularity, but it always blows up to infinity as you approach the singularity.

However, there is some mathematical evidence that a realistic charged or spinning black hole, rather than having a wormhole as they would if they were isolated, would have a singularity that has finite curvature (i.e. finite gravity). I don't really know anything about that though, and it's still a matter of debate.


So it's redistributed as quarks and leptons or what exactly inhabits a blackhole? For the most part just the original atoms that were sucked in and have not reached the singularity yet?
The quarks and leptons just "go into" the singularity and stay there forever (this would presumably be the case whether or not the singularity is something like a location of infinite density, as in classical GR, or something else, as it might be in quantum gravity). Depending on the size of the black hole, matter can reach the singularity relatively quickly. But usually we don't care what's past the event horizon, because no information can come back out of it (although that's also a matter of debate). The defining feature of a black hole is that it possesses an event horizon, rather than anything inside that horizon.


Awesome.
But again, that's for an isolated black hole. For a realistic black hole, you wouldn't get such craziness. Also, it's unlikely for a charged black hole to remain charged for very long. Since it would attract oppositely charged matter more strongly than any other matter, it would end up being neutral after a while.

[The Mike]

Isn't there a "Things That Human Minds Can't Comprehend" Thread out there for this stuff? :confused:

[Ivan Drago]

I popped my Star Trek cherry upon seeing this and thought it was awesome. One thing that really bugged me, though: What was up with all the lens flares?

[Dead & Messed Up]

One thing that really bugged me, though: What was up with all the lens flares?

Abrams's rationale. (http://io9.com/5230278/jj-abrams-tells-us-why-star-trek-has-so-many-lens-flares)

At least he has the good humor to know he went overboard.

[Qrazy]

"There are something about those flares, especially in a movie that can potentially be very sterile and CG and overly controlled. There is something incredibly unpredictable and gorgeous about them. It is a really fun thing. Our DP would be off camera with this incredibly powerful flashlight aiming it at the lens."

What an asshole.

[number8]

Well, the problem with his explanation is that I did not think, "Gee, something must be happening off-screen."

I was thinking, "Gee, did tinted windows become extinct in the future?"

[Spinal]

Well, I tried. Beyond Simon Pegg and a couple of good action scenes, this was pretty much interminable.

[Sxottlan]

Well, the problem with his explanation is that I did not think, "Gee, something must be happening off-screen."

I was thinking, "Gee, did tinted windows become extinct in the future?"

Especially funny considering Captain Rabau orders the bridge window's tinted in just the film's second shot. He already had an idea of what was to come.

[number8]

Especially funny considering Captain Rabau orders the bridge window's tinted in just the film's second shot. He already had an idea of what was to come.

For the DVD release, they should come with cheap plastic sunglasses.

"Looks like the audience could use a little..... space."

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!! !!!

[Morris Schæffer]

Well, I tried. Beyond Simon Pegg and a couple of good action scenes, this was pretty much interminable.

Really? You would single out Pegg beyond anyone else? Or is this more like Pegg is God in a way that some folks think that Bruce Campbell is the coolest actor alive?

[Watashi]

Pegg was one of the least impressive parts of the cast. Him and his stupid alien sidekick were too much.

[Spinal]

Really? You would single out Pegg beyond anyone else? Or is this more like Pegg is God in a way that some folks think that Bruce Campbell is the coolest actor alive?

He was the only actor who was actually able to breathe some life into that ridiculous script.

[Raiders]

I actually thought the acting across the board was by far the film's greatest asset. I found each and every performance to be top notch.

Honestly though, if I had to pick films to recommend to Spinal, I assure you this one would be somewhere not too far from Apocalypto and John Cassavetes' films.

[jamaul]

This film gets Jamaul's stamp of approval. I think it was a breath of fresh air that J.J. and his crew fashioned a film that focused more on the enjoyment factor, stirring up audience exhiliration with a tight, well structured story as opposed to trying to be 'relevant' with cornball modern political, cultural or sociological reference . . . this movie was funny, slick, well made and a GD blast.

[Ivan Drago]

Eh...a part of me likes that explanation for the lens flares, but another part of me finds it stupid. "in some places, it feels like the future is that bright." :|

[Dead & Messed Up]

He and his stupid alien sidekick were too much.

His sidekick was stupid, but Pegg was awesome.

[number8]

I liked the alien sidekick. What's the problem, again?

[Dead & Messed Up]

I liked the alien sidekick. What's the problem, again?

Not funny, which is bad when the sole purpose is comic relief.

[Dukefrukem]

Not funny, which is bad when the sole purpose is comic relief.

It didn't even say or do anything aside from blink.

[Qrazy]

I liked the alien sidekick. What's the problem, again?

I agree, his sniffle when Pegg left was too on the nose but still funny.

[thefourthwall]

So, Eric Bana actually can act a little? That was a surprise to me. My first exposure to him was in Lucky You and so he's always fighting that role in my head.

Even though I've really only watched TNG, I enjoyed Star Trek a lot; it makes me want to watch the original series so that I can understand more of the in jokes beyond the broad characters. Did Spock and Uhura always have a thing?

[EvilShoe]

Pegg was one of the least impressive parts of the cast. Him and his stupid alien sidekick were too much.
Best parts of the movie.

[Winston*]

Best parts of the movie.
Agreed.

[Rowland]

This thing moves like a motherfucker. Neither its command of image nor its editorial rhythms peg Abrams as a particularly talented director, but he paces the pulpy narrative so breathlessly that the many contrivances in his dense narrative don't register with much impact until you dwell upon them in retrospect. Ditto some of the ludicrously shrewd audience-baiting tactics in the early stages, where I wasn't sure if J.J. was attempting to channel the cheeseball spirit of the original series or merely being lazy; the truth likely lies somewhere in the middle. As spectacle, this is a merely good effort, but as an introductory character piece, it proves consistently gratifying in its spunk and even-handedness. Praise is due to Abrams as well for devising an immensely clever and ambitious scenario for justifying this reboot, successfully balancing a tightrope walk between handling the established legacy with due reverence without alienating an audience unfamiliar with the terrain. If he doesn't ultimately provide much food for thought, which seems itself a minor betrayal of the original series' spirit, his product remains a spirited crackerjack entertainment rife with promising potential for fleshed-out future entries, as most of the actors acquit themselves with aplomb, so he need only provide us with a more engaging antagonistic force and perhaps a more sophisticated philosophical approach to justify Nimoy's awkwardly tacked-on epiloque voice-over.

[[ETM]]

I hope I'll be able to catch it tomorrow, it's almost out of theatres in these parts.

[Robby P]

So, Eric Bana actually can act a little?

Really? I thought he was quite bad. His character came off like a bad parody of an actual Star Trek villain.

[[ETM]]

So yeah, caught the very last showing of the film, only me, my brother and some random dude were in there. And it was awesome, as expected. Yes, it was lens flare town, and Scotty's stone faced buddy was weird, and Nero was not that compelling as a villain, but there was so much done right I didn't really care. I'd watch this cast again, that's for sure.

[Dukefrukem]

I didn't even notice the lense flares the first time through. I bet they're going to annoy the shit out of me in my second viewing.

[[ETM]]

I didn't even notice the lense flares the first time through. I bet they're going to annoy the shit out of me in my second viewing.

Exactly. I hate when that happens. Everything is a spoiler, not just plot details.

[Sxottlan]

Some thoughts after seeing it for a third time:

-I should probably stop going, because now I'm catching little continuity errors. Kirk's weapon changes a couple times at the end between his phaser and Ayel's gun, which he has at one point before even taking it from Ayel. Captain Robau's Starfleet insignia also came and went. His turbolift also came down when the Kelvin's shuttlebay was above the bridge deck.

-One becomes adjusted to the pile up of convienences in the Delta Vega sequence. My beef is more why is there such a beat up outpost on a planet in a solar system belonging to one of the core worlds of the Federation? Just what did Scotty do there?

-Totally missed the Admiral Archer joke the first time through because I was genuinely having a hard time understanding what Pegg was saying.

-I don't think Nero being in the past would be any motivation to somehow do something to avert Romulus' destruction. The emotional trauma is already there and isn't going to go away.

-A couple of discrepancies from the prequel graphic novel that's out. Unless Spock intentionally made it sound like he had not met Nero until after Romulus was destroyed. In the novel, they're buddies.

-The main theme actually doesn't do much for me. The rest of the musical cues were great, but the main theme wasn't too memorable. As a sidebar, I kind of had to chuckle at the Lost-esque musical montage for characters we only met five minutes earlier. But damnit if it doesn't work.

-I wish they had at least put down green screen on the far walls of the brewery where they filmed the engine room scenes. That way we wouldn't see the obvious non-futuristic wall in the backdrop.

-A couple performances appearing a little overlooked here are Bruce Greenwood and Ben Cross. A nice contrast to all the youth we see on display from the new crew. I particularly like the decision to make Sarek a much more caring father to Spock. A nice contrast from before.

-Loved the sound editing during the mind meld. I could see audio and visual Oscar nominations in this film's future.

-It's funny. I have been so used to crazy things happening in time travel episodes and films that I just expect everything to go back to normal by the end. Not so here. When the two Spocks meet, I suddenly realized, "Oh yeah. Vulcan is still destroyed." This is the rare film involving time travel where it solves nothing (it was after all, an accident) and only inflicts more problems with no resolutions.

[Winston*]

I haven't read this whole thread but has it been discussed how strange it was that Greenwood seemed to have little such little adverse affects from an alien beetle eating his brain?

[number8]

I haven't read this whole thread but has it been discussed how strange it was that Greenwood seemed to have little such little adverse affects from an alien beetle eating his brain?

What are you talking about? HE'S IN A WHEELCHAIR NAO.

[Raiders]

I haven't read this whole thread but has it been discussed how strange it was that Greenwood seemed to have little such little adverse affects from an alien beetle eating his brain?

Didn't it just work the same as those little eel things from Wrath of Khan in that it didn't impair or "eat" the brain but simply put the individual under mind control? I suppose we could wonder how or when it was removed, but whatever.

[Winston*]

Didn't it just work the same as those little eel things from Wrath of Khan in that it didn't impair or "eat" the brain but simply put the individual under mind control? I suppose we could wonder how or when it was removed, but whatever.

It was a pretty big fucking space beetle.

Also, when Scotty says "I never thought to bend space" or whatever and then all of a sudden they're on the Enterprise. Surely you'd need some kind of machine to bend space? Pretty sure you can't just do it.

[Duncan]

It was a pretty big fucking space beetle.

Also, when Scotty says "I never thought to bend space" or whatever and then all of a sudden they're on the Enterprise. Surely you'd need some kind of machine to bend space? Pretty sure you can't just do it.

Not that I want to start defending the merits of Star Trek's science, but I think he was just saying that he was using the wrong frame of reference in is equations.

[[ETM]]

Not that I want to start defending the merits of Star Trek's science, but I think he was just saying that he was using the wrong frame of reference in is equations.

Indeed. He said he never considered the space as the thing that's moving, something like that.

[Bosco B Thug]

Wow, I can eat my shoe. That was easily the best summer blockbuster I've seen in forever. I suppose it doesn't lay a candle to the The Dark Knight in terms of philosophical weight, but at least that also means it's safe from Christopher Nolan's clunky and awkward filmmaking skills. It's also free of the gracelessness of Michael Bay, Stephen Sommers, and that ilk. Abrams, whom I'm familiar with only through M:I 3, really surprised me here.

It's in the filmmaking. There was something very physical and tactile about this film, the film's action, the film's effects, Abrams' directing. Abram's directorial choices, then, go hand-in-hand with the effervescence, personality, and tangibility that come across in the character dynamics. The way we see the characters actually moving and navigating themselves within solid blocks of space. The messiness and materiality of the film's set. I feel like l was seeing 1990s FX practicality with this film. Am I wrong?

But even its heavy 20th century CGI I thought was superbly rendered. I think I may be alone on this from reading this thread, but I thought its outer-space, light-show spectacle had a great visual elegance. There's a moment that involves the floating Red Matter droplets and Abrams' cinematographer spending a few moments filming them while experimenting with the focus and depth. There's Abrams' modest, ungroundbreaking, but ultimately very effective use of expressionistic sound. But don't think I'm talking about that prologue scene. Put me in the "That was hackneyed" camp regarding the opening.

Anyway, I'll distill my admiration of the film's character work and Abrams' handling of it to one example: I love how Spock and Uhura's relationship just is allowed to emerge without it being explicitly stated. When Kirk and Spock are going to be beamed down to Nero's ship, the way Abrams films Spock and Uhura's goodbye embraces in the background of Kirk, to emphasize their ambivalence to Kirk's presence, is expertly crafted texture that really speaks of the intimate character work this film gives us.

Finally, it just has so much personality. It's the opposite of mannered and stuffy, thus it never betrays itself with moments that come off as too silly. Tie this in with the fact that it does have a smart script that communicates resonant messages, and the fact that I thought it's not giving Uhura an aimless "hero" moment showed excellent respect for what her character served to illustrate in the film, and I've got to give this one a solid 7.

And gosh, Transformers 2 looks so sucky.

[Sxottlan]

I think I may be alone on this from reading this thread, but I thought its outer-space, light-show spectacle had a great visual elegance. There's a moment that involves the floating Red Matter droplets and Abrams' cinematographer spending a few moments filming them while experimenting with the focus and depth.

Yeah, that was a great little moment. Why that shot I wonder? I'm thinking it was to show each droplet of Red Matter as symbolizing an individual alternate reality, the "multi-verse" if you will. IDIC indeed.

Very strange, and mirrored in the bizarre aural experience of the mind meld.


Anyway, I'll distill my admiration of the film's character work and Abrams' handling of it to one example: I love how Spock and Uhura's relationship just is allowed to emerge without it being explicitly stated. When Kirk and Spock are going to be beamed down to Nero's ship, the way Abrams films Spock and Uhura's goodbye embraces in the background of Kirk, to emphasize their ambivalence to Kirk's presence, is expertly crafted texture that really speaks of the intimate character work this film gives us.

Also a great moment. It's just suddenly there and I loved Kirk's reaction.

I also liked the double meaning Pike is able to give just the simple phrase, "I am relieved" when he hands command to Kirk. Mostly because it was a major sense of nepotism that he made Kirk XO to Spock to begin with.

[Dukefrukem]

Reflecting back, there were a few things that bothered me about this movie. I hate it when they try to jam too much into a movie's environment/surroundings. The scene where Kirk is being chased by the snow monsters is an example. It's almost like they wanted to put that scene in so they could throw it in the trailers to say: "see the vast changing difference in setting? come watch the movie to find out how it happens". I realize they used it as a segway (sp) into Spock, but they could have done that a million other ways. Too much.

[[ETM]]

When it comes to that scene, I've been disappointed more by the complete disregard of realism when designing the spider-like red animal. It looks like the opposite of something that would survive in such a place. In fact, looked as plausible as any of the CGI alien animals from the SW prequels... *shudders*

[Bosco B Thug]

Very strange, and mirrored in the bizarre aural experience of the mind meld. Oh yeah. That was a good try by Abrams, definitely got me considering higher goals of atmosphere and ambience on Abrams' mind. It didn't utilize lame graphics, filters, flash effects.


;169164']When it comes to that scene, I've been disappointed more by the complete disregard of realism when designing the spider-like red animal. It looks like the opposite of something that would survive in such a place. In fact, looked as plausible as any of the CGI alien animals from the SW prequels... *shudders* It probably signals how starved I was for good brainless entertainment, but I loved that scene and the creature designs. Abrams really knew how to capture the scale and convey the odds between the giant red thing and Kirk.

American buffalos freak me out, too, so that one buffalo-like creature that is running at him at first really hit the spot.

Speaking of which, there's a movie about a rampaging buffalo! The White Buffalo. Saw the trailer on the Orca DVD. I'll have to see that sometime in my life, it seems.

[[ETM]]

American buffalos freak me out, too, so that one buffalo-like creature that is running at him at first really hit the spot.

The first creature is awesome. That is in part why the second one was disappointing.

Also, how about that J.J.Abrams on the MTV awards? Totally random and great.

[Qrazy]

Plus why did the second creature even pursue him? Usually the second creature kills the first creature (Jurassic Park style) and ignores the other creatures because they're smaller, inconsequential and an uninteresting food source/no threat.

[[ETM]]

Plus why did the second creature even pursue him? Usually the second creature kills the first creature (Jurassic Park style) and ignores the other creatures because they're smaller, inconsequential and an uninteresting food source/no threat.

Indeed. Not to mention the good old "I'm huge and right next to you, but why don't I growl in your face first, and give you time to split, eh?" cliche.

I didn't have many problems with the film, but that sequence could easily have been much better.

[Bosco B Thug]

I'm sure it's been mentioned, but there's also the fact that without the creatures, Kirk happening across Spock would've come off as a lot more probable.

Probably the biggest credibility stretch in the film that doesn't have to do with space-time physics?

[number8]

I wouldn't have a problem with the creatures if Kirk had picked up a boulder and kill them by throwing it. While shirtless.

[[ETM]]

I'm satisfied with the explanation that both Spock and Kirk were dropped onto the planet near the Federation outpost. At least Kirk was - Spock had plenty of time to navigate towards it. And then - Kirk needed shelter, Spock's cave happens to be the only shelter around etc.

[Duncan]

It would have made a lot more sense if they had just met at the outpost.

[Qrazy]

I'm sure it's been mentioned, but there's also the fact that without the creatures, Kirk happening across Spock would've come off as a lot more probable.

Probably the biggest credibility stretch in the film that doesn't have to do with space-time physics?

Well I've heard these type of coincident complaints about the film a lot. And personally I definitely think Abrams was trying to invoke an... 'even in a parallel universe there is a fate/logic to it all/something beyond our understanding at work...' perspective. I think the unlikeliness of many of the meetings was very much intentional (that is to say he didn't want them to just meet at the outpost he wanted to have the meeting be the result of an unlikely chain of events) and since the absurdity of these meetings were at least acknowledged (old Spock's tone/comments when meeting Kirk or Scotty and Kirk's 'bullshit') I didn't really mind them.

Although when it comes to how two planets full of people couldn't destroy an enormous unshielded drill looming over their planet which a few torpedo bursts (or whatever the ammunition was) quickly dispatched... leaves me scratching my head a bit more.

[Raiders]

Did Vulcan have any weapons of any kind in order to destroy the drill? Weren't they the epitome of no violence and intellect over strength?

[Qrazy]

Did Vulcan have any weapons of any kind in order to destroy the drill? Weren't they the epitome of no violence and intellect over strength?

Don't know but don't think so... here's all I could find.

"Lirpa

A lirpa is a Vulcan weapon consisting of a wooden staff a little over a meter in length, with a semicircular blade at one end and a metal bludgeon on the other. It is similar to the monk's spade. Captain James T. Kirk and Spock used lirpas when they fought for possession of T'Pring during Spock's Pon farr ritual in "Amok Time". Soldiers sent after Jonathan Archer and T'Pol fought with lirpas because Vulcan's "Forge" region makes conventional energy weapons useless.

[edit] Ahn'woon

An ahn'woon is a Vulcan catch-strangle weapon, similar in principle to the Earth Roman gladiator's weighted net. The multi-strapped weapon (approximately 1.1 meters long) uses weights on the ends of the straps to entangle, stun, or cut the target, and the application of tying action and wrapping can restrict the breathing of the target, asphyxiating the victim."

[[ETM]]

Did Vulcan have any weapons of any kind in order to destroy the drill? Weren't they the epitome of no violence and intellect over strength?

That seems to be the general idea, although in the previous ST stories they did have powerful weapons and mighty ships. The movie conveys the idea that the "Jellyfish" Spock flies is a special-built vessel for a specific task, not a sign of Vulcan military strength.

Also, one has to be reminded that all the Federation ships save for the Enterprise were destroyed shortly upon arrival at Vulcan... Now that I think of it, Sulu's mistake is another unlikely "coincidence" that saves the day.

[Qrazy]

;169429']That seems to be the general idea, although in the previous ST stories they did have powerful weapons and mighty ships. The movie conveys the idea that the "Jellyfish" Spock flies is a special-built vessel for a specific task, not a sign of Vulcan military strength.

Also, one has to be reminded that all the Federation ships save for the Enterprise were destroyed shortly upon arrival at Vulcan... Now that I think of it, Sulu's mistake is another unlikely "coincidence" that saves the day.

I don't think that was all the federation ships just all the ships that were sent there.

[[ETM]]

I don't think that was all the federation ships just all the ships that were sent there.

Um... I know? I assumed there was no need to clarify that. I was making a point about Narada's advanced weapons - we know that they destroyed 48 Klingon warships at the prison colony, and that there was a distress call from Vulcan.... and the Enterprise only found floating debris.

It is plausible that whatever planetary defense Vulcan was able to muster was already dispatched of before the Federation intervened. It didn't take that long to drill that tunnel after all.

[Duncan]

Well I've heard these type of coincident complaints about the film a lot. And personally I definitely think Abrams was trying to invoke an... 'even in a parallel universe there is a fate/logic to it all/something beyond our understanding at work...' perspective. I think the unlikeliness of many of the meetings was very much intentional (that is to say he didn't want them to just meet at the outpost he wanted to have the meeting be the result of an unlikely chain of events) and since the absurdity of these meetings were at least acknowledged (old Spock's tone/comments when meeting Kirk or Scotty and Kirk's 'bullshit') I didn't really mind them.

Although when it comes to how two planets full of people couldn't destroy an enormous unshielded drill looming over their planet which a few torpedo bursts (or whatever the ammunition was) quickly dispatched... leaves me scratching my head a bit more.

I think the coincidence of Kirk being marooned by Spock only to find Future Spock on another planet, having himself been marooned there (within ~<1mile of running distance from Kirk) by none other than the very many who killed Kirk's father would have been coincidence enough for my tastes.

[Qrazy]

;169434']Um... I know? I assumed there was no need to clarify that.

Wanna fight about it? Klingon death match!


;169434'] I was making a point about Narada's advanced weapons - we know that they destroyed 48 Klingon warships at the prison colony, and that there was a distress call from Vulcan.... and the Enterprise only found floating debris.

Yerp.


;169434']It is plausible that whatever planetary defense Vulcan was able to muster was already dispatched of before the Federation intervened. It didn't take that long to drill that tunnel after all.

I dunno it seems to me that drilling a tunnel to the center of a planet takes a while. Maybe not as long as we think it probably would take but at least long enough to muster some sort of defense. I can't believe that both of these planets with 6 billion plus inhabitants would leave them entirely defenseless (particularly within atmosphere non-space ships which could take out the bottom of the drill).

[Qrazy]

I think the coincidence of Kirk being marooned by Spock only to find Future Spock on another planet, having himself been marooned there (within ~<1mile of running distance from Kirk) by none other than the very many who killed Kirk's father would have been coincidence enough for my tastes.

Haha fair enough. Since I could care less about the animal attack segment for different reasons I think your edit would probably be preferable.

[[ETM]]

Wanna fight about it? Klingon death match!

You bring the Bat'leths.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Abrams really knew how to capture the scale and convey the odds between the giant red thing and Kirk.

That was one of the few scenes in the film where I thought the "odds" were poorly thought-out, mostly because the editing was so ridiculous. That animal should've eaten Kirk about three times over, but it kept cutting from these ridiculous right-on-his-tail shots to wider shots that suddenly showed a huge distance between them.

I kept thinking, "Oh, he's totally gonna get h--wait, what?"

[Bosco B Thug]

That was one of the few scenes in the film where I thought the "odds" were poorly thought-out, mostly because the editing was so ridiculous. That animal should've eaten Kirk about three times over, but it kept cutting from these ridiculous right-on-his-tail shots to wider shots that suddenly showed a huge distance between them.

I kept thinking, "Oh, he's totally gonna get h--wait, what?"
Okay, yeah, the prior sentence I gave to express my liking of the scene is kinda bullshit. It is a silly scene (one of those "Oh ho! Our hero is screaming in fear and bewilderment! Aw, how down-to-earth!" scenes).

But I thought of a different example why this scene worked in spades for me! There's that moment when Kirk falls off a cliff. If I remember correctly, we see the creature fall of the cliff shortly after him, but from a distance. The impressing spectacle is there with this giant thing tumbling off a cliff; our distance from it removes the risks of bad CGI-ness; and its presence in the environment is made visceral and very clear. This was a well done movie.

[Sxottlan]

Did Vulcan have any weapons of any kind in order to destroy the drill? Weren't they the epitome of no violence and intellect over strength?

Well, always one problem with Trek, at least IMO, is that the Federation and the memberworlds have always seemed so defenseless. Most likely a visual effect cost-saving measure, the orbits of all of the planets have been barren with nary a ship to be seen. This was even more problematic in the TV shows.

Vulcan, in the century preceding the film, was on an increasingly militaristic bent before a cultural reformation. Then they had a sizable fleet. The number of Starfleet vessels seen in this film is actually the most we've seen in Earth orbit, like, ever. Planetary defense grids would seem like a good idea too, but they've never been seen in Trek (save one DS9 episode).

[number8]

Well, always one problem with Trek, at least IMO, is that the Federation and the memberworlds have always seemed so defenseless. Most likely a visual effect cost-saving measure, the orbits of all of the planets have been barren with nary a ship to be seen. This was even more problematic in the TV shows.

I always thought this was intentional, to show how we've finally overcome war.

DS9, of course, we see more of because Ron D. Moore and co decided to start a war.

[Qrazy]

I always thought this was intentional, to show how we've finally overcome war.

DS9, of course, we see more of because Ron D. Moore and co decided to start a war.

Had they overcome war? I thought they were constantly at odds with Klingons, Romulans and others.

And even if they had there should still be more orbiting space stations/craft.

[Sycophant]

Huh. Turns out I really (like, really) liked this. There were a couple of shots without a lens flare where I was like "this could really use a lens flare," though.

[megladon8]

Fantastic movie. More blockbuster summer entertainment should strive to meet this level of quality.

[soitgoes...]

Fantastic movie. More blockbuster summer entertainment should strive to meet this level of quality.
Glad to see you back.

[number8]

More blockbuster summer entertainment should strive to meet this level of quality.

Nah. Let's not aim low.

[Sxottlan]

I've seen this movie four times now. While all the Best Picture chatter is nice, I just can't see it lasting until the nominees are announced.

Of course I hope I'm wrong.

[Morris Schæffer]

Fantastic movie. More blockbuster summer entertainment should strive to meet this level of quality.

In a way yes. For all the technical wizardy on offer - and seriously, big budget Star Trek was fucking invigorating if not exactly pulse-pounding - it's the characters that have stayed with me long after I left the theater.

As far as Trek movies are concerned, the smell of "rehash" was, I'm afraid to say, a little too prevalent.

[Dukefrukem]

As far as Trek movies are concerned, the smell of "rehash" was, I'm afraid to say, a little too prevalent.

Wasn't it though? It was almost too obvious for some of the references... It was in your face and borderline annoying.

[Ezee E]

My first foray into Star Trek. Not impressed at all.

I liked everything until they got on the Enterprise.

[Sxottlan]

My first foray into Star Trek. Not impressed at all.

I liked everything until they got on the Enterprise.

Oh well. I'm glad you tried it. :)

[Yxklyx]

I liked this one a lot. Loved the fast paced well written story. Loved the new characterizations. A lot of energy held together well. Will probably be in my top 10 for 2009.

[Lucky]

I had never seen anything related to Star Trek before I saw this in theaters. Loved it. Watched it again last night and it's a new favorite. I never got into the Star Wars movies, but this is a franchise that I look forward to.

[lovejuice]

i like it. as a time traveling sci-fi, it's too much of a no-brainer, but the film has enough energy to sustain it through out most of its running time. (i still feel like it's 5 or 10 minutes too long though.)