• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Star Trek Into Darkness: 86% at RT.com (Post reviews here!)

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Fritzo said:
Us nerds hated it because it was a generic space action film, not a Trek movie. There was no moral story, too much shaky-cam explosion fighting, Quinto was trying WAY too hard to be Spock, Simon Pegg was completely miscast as Scotty, the sterile white bridge of the Enterprise sucked, the Uhura/Spock romance was unnecessary, Chekov's character was completely annoying, the "red matter" storyline was rediculous (as well as impossible- you can't create mass...a 20 lb ball of matter would create a black hole of the same mass), and the villain was essentially the same villain from Star Trek Nemesis.

I did like Chris Pine as Kirk, but wasn't too fond of him being such an obnoxious jackass. Karl Urban as McCoy pretty much nailed it, and Sulu (while being a bit over the top), was decent. Other than that...it was a disappointment. I gave it 2.5 stars out of 5. I'm hoping they bring more of their A game with 2nd movie.
Click to expand...

What if black holes just have a really low density so the volume is huge? :colbert:
 
gorcorps said:
What if black holes just have a really low density so the volume is huge? :colbert:
Click to expand...

Then it wouldn't be able to collapse on itself to form in the first place. Black holes form because gravity has a breaking point. When you put a certain amount of matter in one location, it's gravity becomes so intense that space warps space to its breaking point. A black hole is theoretically an infinitely dense point.

To visualize this, picture a pellet in the center of a trampoline in your backyard. The trampoline represents space/time. The pellet puts the tiniest dimple in the fabric due to Earth's gravity.

Now, imagine a bowling ball is shrunk to the size of a pellet. It puts a large, sharp dimple in the fabric. You could actually roll a ball around the edge of the dimple and put the ball into "orbit" around the pellet.

Now, imagine the pellet had the mass of Mt. Everest. The dimple in the fabric would be so sharp and deep you wouldn't be able to see the bottom. The area where something could orbit would be very small, and if something fell into the dimple, you wouldn't be able to see what happens to it.

This is a simplistic way to view what happens when a black hole forms. Huge amounts of stellar material collapse into a single point, and it forms a gravity well that is so steep that you would need to travel faster than light to back out of it.
 
Why is this a review thread when nobody here has watched the movie.

Saw it in 3D (is that the only option?) and really enjoyed it. The lens flare wasn't as bad as the previews had us believe. I liked the way they set up the ending for future exploration and I still like how they're taking the TV show and movies and distorting them in familiar ways in this timeline.

Oh and the future mother of his children is drop dead gorgeous.
 
I'd rather Abrams just made some new sci fi instead of using star trek for his own type of movie. It's not that his movie isn't entertaining, but it sort of trashes the license.

It's kind of like a remake of lord of the rings would be which is really something very different but used the same names. Just make a different fantasy film.
 
should have named it star trek: into lens flare. seriously that shit was everywhere.


KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
 
The 3D looked great. I had no problem with it. There was some 3D lensflare though that was interesting but like I said above the lensflare wasn't that bad and was less than the first movie.
 
so when do u expect star trek reboot III- search for Spock will come out?

i'm surprised they didnt start shooting it already back to back with II.

kinda like back to the future II and III.

u know theres going to be a squel linked to II
 
JEDI said:
so when do u expect star trek reboot III- search for Spock will come out?

i'm surprised they didnt start shooting it already back to back with II.

kinda like back to the future II and III.

u know theres going to be a squel linked to II
Click to expand...

You didn't watch this movie so your post makes no sense.
 
Fritzo said:
Then it wouldn't be able to collapse on itself to form in the first place. Black holes form because gravity has a breaking point. When you put a certain amount of matter in one location, it's gravity becomes so intense that space warps space to its breaking point. A black hole is theoretically an infinitely dense point.

To visualize this, picture a pellet in the center of a trampoline in your backyard. The trampoline represents space/time. The pellet puts the tiniest dimple in the fabric due to Earth's gravity.

Now, imagine a bowling ball is shrunk to the size of a pellet. It puts a large, sharp dimple in the fabric. You could actually roll a ball around the edge of the dimple and put the ball into "orbit" around the pellet.

Now, imagine the pellet had the mass of Mt. Everest. The dimple in the fabric would be so sharp and deep you wouldn't be able to see the bottom. The area where something could orbit would be very small, and if something fell into the dimple, you wouldn't be able to see what happens to it.

This is a simplistic way to view what happens when a black hole forms. Huge amounts of stellar material collapse into a single point, and it forms a gravity well that is so steep that you would need to travel faster than light to back out of it.
Click to expand...

I like that analogy. Did you read that somewhere? I haven't read up on any sort of the current knowledge or theories of black holes so I was just joking. It would be nice to read up on it though.
 
JEDI said:
damn it Jim.. guess we wont see the Genesis Project in III
Click to expand...
The time frame is all wrong. Kirk just met Carol Marcus, they haven't had a child yet, genesis is years away. This is the story of the first time they meet Khan, Wrath of Khan would be the story of the second time they met. Then of course there's the whole time travel altering the universe thing.

They ripped elements out of Wrath of Khan (the whole reactor scene) for this version because there won't be a remake of that one, nor genesis. If anything I expect the next film to cover Klingons.
 
gorcorps said:
I like that analogy. Did you read that somewhere? I haven't read up on any sort of the current knowledge or theories of black holes so I was just joking. It would be nice to read up on it though.
Click to expand...

It's a standard way physicists explain how gravity warps space in classrooms these days 🙂
 
just saw it in imax 3d, enjoyed it, the 3d didn't bother me to much
khaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan
 
I despise having to watch movies in "3D" (sometimes theaters here only have that version). Having to put silly plastic filters on top of my glasses = bad movie experience, zero added value, all for a HIGHER price.

Pfft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top