RyanThunder wrote:I mean planetside missile silos and emergency shields for buildings and what not. I'm not asking for impregnability here.
Whatever the case, the Enterprise and Vengeance were both able to make dangerously close to a major population centre unchallenged. That's just not acceptable. Even if we accept that they can't stop something that big from hitting the ground (which isn't unreasonable), there wasn't even anything trying to stop them. Suppose one of their space docks falls out of orbit. What then?
Well they were technically friendly vessels who suffered unfortunate accidents from the point of view of Earth's mission control. Stopping crashing ships is different from stopping attacking ships (plus there were loads of emergency service vessels going into action).
Furthermore, airspace control. Khan zoomed right up to Starfleet Command with that gunship, completely unchallenged. The admirals had to request air defense teams to try to shoot it down.
That bit bothered me as well, I'd thought an emergency military meeting after a terrorist/guerrilla attack would take place in a bunker.
Though the whole stunk anyway and was part of Admiral Robocop's plan, trying to manipulate both Kirk and Khan.
Re: Trek Thread
Posted: Fri May 31, 2013 12:37 am
by Flagg
Yeah the thing that still shits me about the first one was how Spock had to shoot down the Narada's drill platform. Why didn't the federation have some fighters? I mean we see them in the sequel.
Re: Trek Thread
Posted: Fri May 31, 2013 9:16 am
by evilsoup
...I don't remember any fighters in Into Darkness, where did they turn up?
For the next film, I bet they'll do the Mirror Universe stuff.
Re: Trek Thread
Posted: Fri May 31, 2013 9:34 am
by Flagg
evilsoup wrote:...I don't remember any fighters in Into Darkness, where did they turn up?
For the next film, I bet they'll do the Mirror Universe stuff.
At the end, they flew over the funeral.
Re: Trek Thread
Posted: Fri May 31, 2013 6:43 pm
by RogueIce
You know, in all this speculation about what nuTrek III should do, I think everybody is overlooking the most important element they could have.
Uhura doing the fan dance.
Re: Trek Thread
Posted: Fri May 31, 2013 7:02 pm
by RyanThunder
Look to your avatar
Re: Trek Thread
Posted: Sat Jun 01, 2013 1:36 am
by Darksi4190
RogueIce wrote:Uhura doing the fan dance.
You fool! Now you've put that vomit-inducing mental image from STV in my head. It will take me days to force it back out. Days of abject horror.
Re: Trek Thread
Posted: Sat Jun 01, 2013 8:18 am
by Bounty
Saw the new movie last night. In short: it's a good action movie, and apart from being very LOUD and FAST there isn't much wrong with it. The plot's convoluted but it all fits, the acting is actually pretty great (especially Cumberbatch - the guy does creepy like few people do creepy), the effects are super duper. There's a lot more humor and it actually works.
I'm just really disappointed that like the last movie, it's really navelgazing-y. The opening scenes are on an actual honest-to-god alien planet with alien natives and it was great, but after five minutes we're back to Earth and a villain trying to kill everybody. That stuff worked in the original film series because it came *after* a show about galloping into the great unknown, but here it's really grating.
Looks like they're setting up the third movie to be away from Earth, unless there's a five-year timeskip to the crew getting back from their wonderful space adventures...
It's also stuffed with blink-and-you-miss-it Trek references. Like, a lot of them.
also Kirk bangs twin Caitians
Re: Trek Thread
Posted: Sat Jun 01, 2013 1:29 pm
by Big Orangutan
Flagg wrote:Yeah the thing that still shits me about the first one was how Spock had to shoot down the Narada's drill platform. Why didn't the federation have some fighters? I mean we see them in the sequel.
Vulcan and Earth may have sent off militia/police interceptors to fight Nero's giant doomship off screen (then presumably shot down in short order).
Re: Trek Thread
Posted: Sat Jun 01, 2013 2:30 pm
by evilsoup
They may not have had those kinds of fighters in the first film
Re: Trek Thread
Posted: Sat Jun 01, 2013 2:46 pm
by Darksi4190
How much time has passed between ST'09 and the end of Into Darkness?
A couple of years? Is that enough time to design, test, and deploy a new type of fighter aircraft?
Re: Trek Thread
Posted: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:37 pm
by Oxymoron
In real life, probably not, or probably just a 'stop-gap' design.
Though with Future Technologies(tm) who knows ?
Re: Trek Thread
Posted: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:53 pm
by evilsoup
The ships could well have been in the testing stage when ST09 happened
or they could just be some kind of atmospheric fighters
Re: Trek Thread
Posted: Sat Jun 01, 2013 4:32 pm
by Oxymoron
So, complete ST newb question :
Does the United Federation of Planets even have a "military" so to speak ? I mean, I have been led to understand that Starfleet primary concern was exploration and flag-showing, not to be an offensive force.
Do the federated planets even have the right to maintain a self-defense force ?
Re: Trek Thread
Posted: Sat Jun 01, 2013 4:37 pm
by Big Orangutan
It makes sense that Earth, Vulcan, and other major member worlds maintain their own defence forces (similar to State Troopers or a localised Coast Guard) but that was never really explored properly in Old-Trek, before a under-aged Kirk got chased by that local hover bike officer (also you had Starfleet officers or enlisted men acting like street cops).
The Starfleet uniforms have been revamped a bit (with Starfleet having formal looking dove grey navy/air force looking dress uniforms).
Re: Trek Thread
Posted: Sat Jun 01, 2013 5:53 pm
by adr
We do know there's such things as "Vulcan ships" so probably yes to the federated q.
Re: Trek Thread
Posted: Sat Jun 01, 2013 6:34 pm
by Bounty
In TOS it was pretty unclear, mainly because everything about the universe tended to change from one episode to the next (Does Kirk work for Earth? UESPA? The Federation?). Then in TNG the Vulcans had their own defense fleet for a few episodes even though they were also a major part of Starfleet. Everything afterwards put space defense on Starfleet.
So it's really 'whatever the hell floats your boat'.
Re: Trek Thread
Posted: Sat Jun 01, 2013 6:35 pm
by Darksi4190
A science fiction universe inconsistent with itself?
Inconceivable!
Re: Trek Thread
Posted: Sat Jun 01, 2013 6:42 pm
by Oxymoron
[nerdrage]
Re: Trek Thread
Posted: Sat Jun 01, 2013 6:48 pm
by Oxymoron
How do you want to quantify anything in these conditions ! Seriously, guys...
Re: Trek Thread
Posted: Sat Jun 01, 2013 6:54 pm
by Bounty
It's still weird seeing an Enterprise that big. The new massive lobby set... Christ. Nice core though.
Re: Trek Thread
Posted: Sat Jun 01, 2013 7:05 pm
by Big Orangutan
Bounty wrote: The new massive lobby set... Christ.
I dig the circular atrium area as well, but it seemed like something more suited to the Enterprise-D (if they didn't have a relatively low TV budget). The engineering sector was greatly improved as well.
Re: Trek Thread
Posted: Sat Jun 01, 2013 7:37 pm
by RogueIce
Apparently the warp core is a real place, just with set dressing added.
Re: Trek Thread
Posted: Sat Jun 01, 2013 7:39 pm
by Flagg
RogueIce wrote:Apparently the warp core is a real place, just with set dressing added.
Yeah it's an actual fusion reactor test core.
Re: Trek Thread
Posted: Sat Jun 01, 2013 11:08 pm
by Manus Dei
All the white gave it a very NASA feel, which was cool.
Also Bumbledick Cuddlebunch was ace, the way he delivered the
"John Harrison was a fiction created the moment my pod was opened, a smokescreen created to hide my true nature. My name...is KHAN.