Open Star Trek Discussion Thread

This isn't exactly addressing the question (but for that matter, I thought the movie was clever, dutifully reverent toward tradition, and entertaining), but in terms of "Framing Science", I wish someone would explain how frictionless low-temperature re-entry is accomplished from orbital speeds. I mean, we're in the Trek'verse, and it's science fiction in the future, but "science"-wise, when entering into an atmosphere at high speed, you're gonna get hot unless there's some advanced technology in the Trek'verse I never was aware of. Warp drive is one thing, but even Star Trek acknowledges the need for basic physics when maneuvering on impulse power. Well, we know what basic physics (and geophysics) means for re-entering space vehicles, don't we? So why doesn't it apply to re-entering space-jumping humans?

To its credit, when Serenity (Firefly) was entering a planetary atmosphere, there was friction and heat. As there should have been in "Star Trek". Or the alternative, an explanation of how this problem is overcome with the advanced technology available in the Trek'verse.

Careful Matthew, you geekiness is showing in public!
I'll come back to this thread after I see the film...

Clearly a pitch, and I think a good one.

I'll let you know after I see it. Probably next week.

Oakden, I noticed that in the trailer but assumed from the presence of the cable (part of a space elevator?) that the drop was from a synchronous "orbit" (maybe not an orbit strictly speaking since it would need to be powered at that altitude). If so there might not be a problem, noting that most re-entry heat is from loss of orbital speed. The unknown (to me) is whether drag that high in the atmosphere would slow a falling person quickly enough to avoid heating, which is what happens in the lower atmosphere (due to a relatively low terminal velocity being reached). My suspicion is that it would as long as the start point wasn't too high.

I think its a mistake to try to get every piece of science correct and visibly correct in movies set in the distant future.
It's far better to leave some things unexplained in the sense of 'future technologies, will appear indistinguishable from magic'.

Star Trek is all well and good, however its time to get on with something new. Hollywood has gone overboard with prequels, sequels, etc. They have little imagination/ creativity anymore. If the scientific community really wants to make an impact, produce shows that feature mind-blowing physics- and not just the usual discovery channel bilge. Take 'Planet Earth' for example- incredible. The public (me) eats up shows like that and simple things like 'mythbusters'. We live in a (basically) infinite universe, yet moviegoers settle for the mind-shrinking puke Hollywood blasts us with. Follow Carl Sagans example and really bring it home people! Asimov anyone? I can't stand what passes for entertainment these days, and I'm 25! A lot of people my age aren't afraid to show interest in the 'bigger picture' some are afraid ask about. With today's technology, bringing the gigantic dimensions of space and time to the screen will open up something most people have never considered.

Picture dropping a camera into Jupiter... on Imax.

I think its time for Academia to make war on hollywood and cheap entertainment as a whole and wake them up to the more interesting thing called 'reality.' So much tech and science is wasted on crap entertainment, something needs to turn around now.

Thanks for listening to my rant!

SPOILERS AHEAD...

Star Trek was an entertaining Hollywood blockbuster action film, but it also had all the flaws I've come to expect from such movies, particularly weak writing (even for Star Trek).

I don't expect them to get the science entirely correct. It's sci-fi, so there's going to be some fudging. Nonetheless, the scientific plot devices were so absurd in Star Trek, they were distracting. A supernova somehow threatens to destroy an entire GALAXY, so old Spock needs to use a drop of "red matter" (very creative name, don't you think?) to create a black hole in the supernova (because black holes are now magically LESS dangerous than supernovae), except the black hole is not a black hole at all because it sucks old Spock and Nero back in time. So here's Nero, back in time, upset that his planet was destroyed by a supernova, and instead of using the "red matter" to suck up the star long before it goes supernova, he decides to ignore this second chance to save his planet and, instead, seeks revenge. Apparently his entire crew is equally shortsighted. He decides to use the "red matter" to destroy Vulcan, but in order to do so he has to drill a hole to Vulcan's core, because apparently igniting the "red matter" in Vulcan's atmosphere and creating a black hole there would not work to suck up the planet. (I thought maybe they needed to use the core to ignite the "red matter," but that theory is disproven at the film's conclusion.) The black hole is created and sucks up Vulcan... but only Vulcan. Apparently the nearby planet (which really must be a moon, considering the view of Vulcan it provides) is in no danger at all.

If I may take a momentary break from describing the absurd and inconsistent science, this is a good time to mention another absurd development in the movie. Kirk is belligerent and vocally disagrees with Spock after Vulcan is destroyed, so what does Spock do? He ejects him from the ship and abandons him on an unsafe planet (the computer in his pod warns him)... because apparently the brig just wouldn't have been enough. There's a reason the writers had Spock make that ridiculous choice though, because now Kirk can conveniently be chased by a random big red monster into a cave, where he conveniently runs into old Spock. Old Spock explains everything, and they go to a nearby outpost that Spock knows about but has apparently never entered, where they conveniently meet Scotty. By this point, the movie went far beyond believable coincidence into the territory of lazy writing. (Let's not forget, the *entire* main fleet was also conveniently out of reach of Vulcan, which is what forced the cadets onto the Enterprise and other ships in the first place.)

So now we're at Earth, and Nero wants to create another black hole to destroy the planet (but only the planet, and only if it's created in the core), but the day is saved when the drill is shot down! Hey, wait a minute... why didn't they shoot and destroy the drill when it was drilling into Vulcan? Nero runs away, but our heroes follow, and Spock crashes the future Spock's ship into Nero's ship, igniting the entire vat of "red matter!" One single tiny drop destroys an entire planet, so I'd hate to see what the entire vat does! Oh... so it's a bigger hole but apparently only slightly more powerful? And now it's a deadly black hole instead of a time traveling black hole, despite being made from the same stuff?

After it's all said and done, the Enterprise - the flagship of the federation - is given to a bunch of cadets who only just graduated Starfleet Academy. Kirk - the new captain - almost didn't even do that. Sure, they performed with valor, but even if you're going to fast-track promote them, wouldn't you give them a science vessel or something first, rather than the flagship? This one is a more minor quibble, but there's only so much I can overlook in terms of movie logic and it's icing on the cake.

Oh, and now that we have Magic Transporting, where Scotty can beam people extreme distances and onto warp speed ships, I assume there will be no starships in the second movie, since everyone will be able to instantly beam almost anywhere?

I haven't even gotten into the ridiculousness that was Scotty's alien sidekick and the other gratuitous, Star Wars-esque, alien shots.

This Star Trek movie was fun for the explosions, but it's quality was on the low end of mindless Hollywood action.

"I can't stand what passes for entertainment these days, and I'm 25!"

Glad I'm not the only one (I'm 26).

I'm 22, but that's still old enough to remember when movies credited the viewer with a little more intelligence. When simplistic plots didn't have to be spelt out in red felt pen. When it was worth watching a movie twice to see things you didn't get the first time.

Also, I thought the bad guys had a bit of a, er, Soviet aura about them. They had "red matter" and everything. The cold war's over, chaps!

The Onion has a great story on the latest Star Trek movie.

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film

The Onion has a great story on the latest Star Trek movie.

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film

The Onion story is amusing, but I've noticed a tendency for people to use it as an excuse to ignore criticism of the movie. I'm all for fun and watchable movies, but fast-paced action and explosions don't make decent storytelling irrelevant. Yes, I like to sit back and enjoy a popcorn flick every now and then, but I can only shut my brain off so much.

Thank God there are smart people out there who noticed and disliked this movie's many flaws: faulty science, bad dialogue, weak storytelling, thin plot, over reliance on cliches, and Star Wars parallels. Every critic seems to have a hard-on for this trash and everyone I personally know who saw this film really liked it and dismisses my criticism as irrelevant. Hollywood really is brainwashing this stupid country.