Star Trek Into Darkness

OK, I'm done staying quiet about this (it's been an entire 24 hours :lol:): Star Trek Into Darkness has wonderful characters. The way they play off each other is typically excellent Abrams/Orci/Kurtzman fare. One of my favorite things about Trek has always been the extent to which the bridge crews are always close like family. In fact, that's why I watch Trek movies when I'm alone over the holidays. So, on that level this was a terrific movie.

The sets and effects were great. The 3D was terrific. And you gotta love Benedict Cumberbatch as you-know-who. In my opinion, a movie of this nature is most successful when you can actually relate to the antagonist somehow.

BUT THAT SCRIPT! UGH! It's a miserable combination of Space Seed, Trek II, and Trek 6 with far too much disruption simply for the sake of reminding the audience that this is a new universe. Guess what, JJ: we get it. And the remake of a classic scene (with a twist that JJ no doubt convinced himself was witty) that really had no business being conceived, let alone shot, was just too much to bear. And yes, they include the classic line, but it's not what you think. It's far, far, FAR worse. Oh, and don't get me started on the unnecessary shoehorning of one particular Vulcan who shall go unnamed, but whose identity should be pretty obvious to everyone. Shatner must be ripping his hair out.

Being lenient because I'm a Trekkie and this movie is openly marketed as a summer popcorn movie, not to mention the pure adrenaline rush I derived from it, I give it 8/10 overall (as have most of the critics for mostly the same reasons ), but I will warn you... the final sequence will have you screaming, 'Jaaaaaaaaaaaaay Jaaaaaaaaaaaay!'

~BB~

it's by jj abrams. it can't be good.

i really doubt the validity of anyone that says they're a star trek fan and enjoys these "new" films. abrams himself said they aren't made for star trek fans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BellaBellucci

Shatner must be ripping his hair out.

---

Too late.

The franchise really should have stopped after the original few series were done I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BellaBellucci

OK, I'm done staying quiet about this (it's been an entire 24 hours :lol:): Star Trek Into Darkness has wonderful characters. The way they play off each other is typically excellent Abrams/Orci/Kurtzman fare. One of my favorite things about Trek has always been the extent to which the bridge crews are always close like family. In fact, that's why I watch Trek movies when I'm alone over the holidays. So, on that level this was a terrific movie.

The sets and effects were great. The 3D was terrific. And you gotta love Benedict Cumberbatch as you-know-who. In my opinion, a movie of this nature is most successful when you can actually relate to the antagonist somehow.

BUT THAT SCRIPT! UGH! It's a miserable combination of Space Seed, Trek II, and Trek 6 with far too much disruption simply for the sake of reminding the audience that this is a new universe. Guess what, JJ: we get it. And the remake of a classic scene (with a twist that JJ no doubt convinced himself was witty) that really had no business being conceived, let alone shot, was just too much to bear. And yes, they include the classic line, but it's not what you think. It's far, far, FAR worse. Oh, and don't get me started on the unnecessary shoehorning of one particular Vulcan who shall go unnamed, but whose identity should be pretty obvious to everyone. Shatner must be ripping his hair out.

Being lenient because I'm a Trekkie and this movie is openly marketed as a summer popcorn movie, not to mention the pure adrenaline rush I derived from it, I give it 8/10 overall (as have most of the critics for mostly the same reasons ), but I will warn you... the final sequence will have you screaming, 'Jaaaaaaaaaaaaay Jaaaaaaaaaaaay!'

~BB~

---

Totally agree. Just saw it tonight. I wouldn't say that I'm disappointed -- though just a little -- but I really did not like the liberal use of lines and sub-plots lifted from so many other Star Trek episodes / movies. It got to the point that I felt Abrams was making fun of us devoted lifelong fans. I was ready for an awesome movie and would gladly have settled for very good. As it stands the movie was just OK. Also, while the villain had many great villainous traits he still could not touch the character and actor on which it is originally based. And while I thought it was interesting in the first re-boot I'm really not feeling the emotional Spock and his relationship with Uhura. Despite the huge budget and top notch effects I feel like the special effects from Sci-Fi Channel's Battlestar Galactica were more convincing. And what's with the bromance? Kirk rolling his eyes at Spock because he won't reciprocate his declaration that he will miss him.

OMG am I the person that knew the villain is Kh........ nevermind . I told a girl in a red trek dress who it was and whom Alice Eve's character was . She didn't believe me . When he told Kirk who he really was the whole theater was in shock or amazement . I looked behind me at the red dress girl and her group to see her reaction . She gave me that astonished OMG you were right look .

The big thing I noticed about the movie was the Foley ( sound effects ) . They sounded a lot like the ones used in the Star Wars films .

Zoe needs to go back to Berlitz to brush up on her Kling ( Klingon Language ) .

Lastly, Trekkie is a Derogatory Term . Trekker is the proper Term

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chuck

I felt Abrams was making fun of us devoted lifelong fans.

---

I went with my roommate and she said the exact same thing. It really kinda felt like that, didn't it? I mean, I like JJ, but I'm starting to get the idea that he has little respect for us.

~BB~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cecil Rhodes

OMG am I the person that knew the villain is Kh........ nevermind . I told a girl in a red trek dress who it was and whom Alice Eve's character was . She didn't believe me . When he told Kirk who he really was the whole theater was in shock or amazement . I looked behind me at the red dress girl and her group to see her reaction . She gave me that astonished OMG you were right look .

---

Those are JJ's Trek fans. Nevermind them. They've only seen the last movie before this one because it was 'kinda like Star Wars.' :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cecil Rhodes

Lastly, Trekkie is a Derogatory Term . Trekker is the proper Term

---

Says who? I never liked the word 'Trekker.' That sounds like we personally explore strange new worlds, seek out...

~BB~

The record setting weekend is june 14/16 when Man Of Steel is released .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BellaBellucci

Those are JJ's Trek fans. Nevermind them. They've only seen the last movie before this one because it was 'kinda like Star Wars.' :lol:



Says who? I never liked the word 'Trekker.' That sounds like we personally explore strange new worlds, seek out...

~BB~

---

Trekkies say it .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cecil Rhodes

The record setting weekend is june 14/16 when Man Of Steel is released .

---

It looks that way. I would have put my money on Iron Man, but now I'm not so sure. I think every movie I've seen this year has had a Man of Steel trailer on it, Iron Man included.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cecil Rhodes

Trekkies say it .

---

I think I've heard one or two say that, but I don't think it's a 'thing.' :lol:

~BB~

Just curious ..... If you fuck twins that have tails are you having anal sex ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BellaBellucci

It looks that way. I would have put my money on Iron Man, but now I'm not so sure. I think every movie I've seen this year has had a Man of Steel trailer on it, Iron Man included.



I think I've heard one or two say that, but I don't think it's a 'thing.' :lol:

~BB~

---

until a month ago there were only 2 man of steel trailers .

btw, does anybody know whom the villain in MOS is ? It is pretty obvious .

I enjoyed it but I understand how people wouldn't. To me I feel they would have been better going totally off canon and have totally new storylines. I thought it was a good show but there were too many beats where had you paid attention you could guess where they were going based on what had gone years before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cecil Rhodes

until a month ago there were only 2 man of steel trailers .

btw, does anybody know whom the villain in MOS is ? It is pretty obvious .

---

It never really been a secret. :lol:

~BB~

I think it will be pretty interesting to see how Star Trek Fans relate to this movie. I just saw it last night, and although I wouldn't consider myself a "Trekkie", I do like the series. I agree, Bella. After it was over, I walked out kind of feeling a little bit ripped off. I've seen WoK only a couple of times but even at that, I was like, "Haven't they already made this movie?" After all the build up, I was kind of expecting something totally new and interesting.

Is it worth going to see?:)

Yes . Just remember it is only a movie that you are going to see to escape reality for about 2 1/2 hours .

Also I need to say that 2/3 of the packed theater were Trek Fans, not those that only know the 2009 film . There was a positive response but the ovation when the film ended .

Thanks CR.:)

Agreed... definitely worth seeing... for the special effects if nothing else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GroobyKrissy

Agreed... definitely worth seeing... for the special effects if nothing else.

---

I was waiting for your review Krissy.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youngblood61

I was waiting for your review Krissy.:)

---

LoL... Well, now I feel like I have a reputation to uphold.

Honestly though, I think Bella summed things up rather well and I think reaction to the movie will be mixed. Those who didn't watch or don't know about WoK will probably love it. I would guess that most serious movie reviewers though will attack it from the standpoint of a remade version of that, with little imagination. It is almost like they started off the movie but then lost sight of how to end it and someone just said, "Well, let's do this...".

I think there were some nods to Trekkies though. You could hardly revisit the villain without the famous scream somewhere in there... it was just kind of "forced" instead of smooth and seamless with the storyline. I was discussing with some friends afterwards and we all agreed that if they were going to arc storylines, they should have gone the Borg route instead... that will be a blockbuster movie when / if they do that for sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GroobyKrissy

LoL... Well, now I feel like I have a reputation to uphold.

Honestly though, I think Bella summed things up rather well and I think reaction to the movie will be mixed. Those who didn't watch or don't know about WoK will probably love it. I would guess that most serious movie reviewers though will attack it from the standpoint of a remade version of that, with little imagination. It is almost like they started off the movie but then lost sight of how to end it and someone just said, "Well, let's do this...".

I think there were some nods to Trekkies though. You could hardly revisit the villain without the famous scream somewhere in there... it was just kind of "forced" instead of smooth and seamless with the storyline. I was discussing with some friends afterwards and we all agreed that if they were going to arc storylines, they should have gone the Borg route instead... that will be a blockbuster movie when / if they do that for sure.

---

The Borg appeared before TOS (in Enterprise), but only as the 'mystery cybernetic race.' They never identified themselves, and considering that Q from TNG had to fluig the Enterprise into the Delta Quadrant to get their attention again, the Borg clearly had no plans to revist Earth. How would this development be explained in the plot? I'd honestly hate to see them do a Borg-related plot line for that reason. This movie essentially bumped up the events of WoK by about 20 years or so; doing a Borg storyline bumps those events up about two generations. I think the next movie should concentrate on the Romulans taking advantage of the destruction of the Klingon fleet in the first movie, the destruction of Vulcan, and a Starfleet with an obvious identity crisis.

~BB~

PS: It's spelled Qo'nos, JJ. Qo'nos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BellaBellucci

The Borg appeared before TOS (in Enterprise), but only as the 'mystery cybernetic race.' They never identified themselves, and considering that Q from TNG had to fluig the Enterprise into the Delta Quadrant to get their attention again, the Borg clearly had no plans to revist Earth. How would this development be explained in the plot?

---

simple: the borg send 1 drone through a temporal vortex so it can go back in time to kill kirk's mother before he's born, and the future picard sends data through the same temporal vortex to protect kirk's mom and ends up boinking her thus impregnating her with kirk leading up to the events of the star trek 1 and simultaneously remaking terminator and thus bundling the 2 franchises into 1

we can call it 'star trek terminator first contact 3d the next generation' or sttfc3dtng

enough with the Trekkie term . It is Trekker . If you are going complain about cannon, non=cannon. jj abrams etc you have to use the appropriate term for a Trek Fan(atict) .

I hate jar jar abrams.

I detested the first movie. lazy script writing, stupid sight gags, poor characterizations and abridge that looked so much like a fucking trendy LA hair salon I was half expecting to see Bronson Pinchot walking around asking anybody if they wanted an espresso.

i wont waste my money on this schlock.

jar jar has ruined trek and will most likely will run star wars. the turds at Disney did themselves a real disservice by hiring the hack.

I'm a black Trekkie. Not an African American Trekker. People are allowed to self identify any way they choose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chuck

I'm a black Trekkie. Not an African American Trekker. People are allowed to self identify any way they choose.

---

Klingon eh ?

Ahem.. How do I put this? Hmm........ oh yeah, I know. IT SUCKED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Horrible! It looked like a poor man's rip-off of a Micheal Bay Transformer movie with a little Die-Hard thrown in.
Are there no original ideas in Hollywood anymore??????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cecil Rhodes

Klingon eh ?

---

Lol yes according to JJ's version.

You people realize that if they made these movies for just Star Trek fans they wouldn't sell for shit right? I've loved the shows for years, but you can't take the TV show to the movie theater. No one wants to watch 2 1/2 hours of Picard problem solving a political crisis or making contact with a new lifeform. They want to see ship battles and action sequences.

If you want to bring back the heart and soul of what the shows were about (exploration, discovery, non-violent problem solving), get another TV show up and running. As for the movies, give me the popcorn and the explosions with hot chicks in short dresses. That's what the good Star Trek movies always did. II, III, and VI where the best ones by far (of the original cast, I'm leaving TNG out for now). I hated the save the whales and oh look we met god ones. Although I did think VGer was a pretty awesome idea in the original, even if it was an obvious knock-off of 2001.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by serial138

You people realize that if they made these movies for just Star Trek fans they wouldn't sell for shit right? I've loved the shows for years, but you can't take the TV show to the movie theater. No one wants to watch 2 1/2 hours of Picard problem solving a political crisis or making contact with a new lifeform. They want to see ship battles and action sequences.

If you want to bring back the heart and soul of what the shows were about (exploration, discovery, non-violent problem solving), get another TV show up and running. As for the movies, give me the popcorn and the explosions with hot chicks in short dresses. That's what the good Star Trek movies always did. II, III, and VI where the best ones by far (of the original cast, I'm leaving TNG out for now). I hated the save the whales and oh look we met god ones. Although I did think VGer was a pretty awesome idea in the original, even if it was an obvious knock-off of 2001.

---

I liked Star Trek IV . It was humorous going back in time . The only thing good about Star Trek V was how hot the Romulan Ambassodore to Nimbus III was .

I might have to rewatch V. I don't remember any hot Romulan ambassador.

All I remember was Spock's annoying brother and all of a sudden Scotty became a clueless moron. Drove me nuts.

Here's a great never-heard-of-before idea for a movie that will take Stark Trek to a whole new warpfront: let's give the Villain an English Accent...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BellaBellucci

OK, I'm done staying quiet about this (it's been an entire 24 hours :lol:): Star Trek Into Darkness has wonderful characters. The way they play off each other is typically excellent Abrams/Orci/Kurtzman fare. One of my favorite things about Trek has always been the extent to which the bridge crews are always close like family. In fact, that's why I watch Trek movies when I'm alone over the holidays. So, on that level this was a terrific movie.

The sets and effects were great. The 3D was terrific. And you gotta love Benedict Cumberbatch as you-know-who. In my opinion, a movie of this nature is most successful when you can actually relate to the antagonist somehow.

BUT THAT SCRIPT! UGH! It's a miserable combination of Space Seed, Trek II, and Trek 6 with far too much disruption simply for the sake of reminding the audience that this is a new universe. Guess what, JJ: we get it. And the remake of a classic scene (with a twist that JJ no doubt convinced himself was witty) that really had no business being conceived, let alone shot, was just too much to bear. And yes, they include the classic line, but it's not what you think. It's far, far, FAR worse. Oh, and don't get me started on the unnecessary shoehorning of one particular Vulcan who shall go unnamed, but whose identity should be pretty obvious to everyone. Shatner must be ripping his hair out.

Being lenient because I'm a Trekkie and this movie is openly marketed as a summer popcorn movie, not to mention the pure adrenaline rush I derived from it, I give it 8/10 overall (as have most of the critics for mostly the same reasons ), but I will warn you... the final sequence will have you screaming, 'Jaaaaaaaaaaaaay Jaaaaaaaaaaaay!'

~BB~

---

My reaction to a "t". To nutshell it: endlessly derivative whilst nonetheless enthralling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GroobyKrissy

I think it will be pretty interesting to see how Star Trek Fans relate to this movie. I just saw it last night, and although I wouldn't consider myself a "Trekkie", I do like the series. I agree, Bella. After it was over, I walked out kind of feeling a little bit ripped off. I've seen WoK only a couple of times but even at that, I was like, "Haven't they already made this movie?" After all the build up, I was kind of expecting something totally new and interesting.

---

Odd, that's the feeling I have every time I see a MoS trailer: c'mon, we know the back story, we know the villain, let's move on to new territory already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cecil Rhodes

enough with the Trekkie term . It is Trekker . If you are going complain about cannon, non=cannon. jj abrams etc you have to use the appropriate term for a Trek Fan(atict) .

---

It is 'Trekkie' in a behind the scenes clip not sure which one some one said that at one of the early conventions, the first one Gene Roddenberry when to. Gene used the word 'Trekkie' and someone in the crowd yelled out the it was 'Trekker' not 'Trekkie', to which Gene responded "I created it I am pretty sure what the right term is".

And as a very hardcore Star Trek fan I have to say that I absolutely hated the 2009 movie, and am only going to this one because I am being dragged there by a friend. I love all of the other Star Trek series, movies, and games, but this new 'THING' I can not call it Trek. I just have a problem with the flow of the whole thing. I can`t stand the fact that there are so many plot holes that you can fly a Galaxy Class Starship through. I loved the old Trek, there was a good story, character development (specifically Deep Space Nine), philosophical depth, and continuity (the stories tried their best to respect each other).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by volkov2006

It is 'Trekkie' in a behind the scenes clip not sure which one some one said that at one of the early conventions, the first one Gene Roddenberry when to. Gene used the word 'Trekkie' and someone in the crowd yelled out the it was 'Trekker' not 'Trekkie', to which Gene responded "I created it I am pretty sure what the right term is".

And as a very hardcore Star Trek fan I have to say that I absolutely hated the 2009 movie, and am only going to this one because I am being dragged there by a friend. I love all of the other Star Trek series, movies, and games, but this new 'THING' I can not call it Trek. I just have a problem with the flow of the whole thing. I can`t stand the fact that there are so many plot holes that you can fly a Galaxy Class Starship through. I loved the old Trek, there was a good story, character development (specifically Deep Space Nine), philosophical depth, and continuity (the stories tried their best to respect each other).

---

So, I am interested just as an Fan of the series and not a "Trekker" or "Trekkie" or whatever the correct term is (#teamstarwars), what are some of the most glaring "plot holes" that the new movies have in them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GroobyKrissy

So, I am interested just as an Fan of the series and not a "Trekker" or "Trekkie" or whatever the correct term is (#teamstarwars), what are some of the most glaring "plot holes" that the new movies have in them?

---

!WARNING I AM A HARDCORE STAR TREK NERD YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!

Okay let me start:

1:The set up for the first movie is that a star near Romulus was going to go nova. The Romulans ask for either Vulcan/Federation support, even if there was a treaty after Nemesis they are very arrogant and more than likely would have never asked for help even if the knew they were doomed. Then the Vulcans come up with this 'Red Matter' which just seems really out of nowhere to be used to create a black hole to suck up the nova, which seems really weird because the Romulans could have done that themselves, their ships are powered by 'Artificial Singularities' which is just a fancy term for Artificial BLACK HOLE.

2: When we see the USS Kelvin in the first scene it is supposed to be before the timeline splits, so should the details of the ship and crew reflect that, and then the timeline changes after the death of Kirks father.

3: The uniforms: the colors are all wrong even in Enterprise we had the colors set up(Red, Gold, Blue) why were they all of a sudden different.

4: the antennas on all of the consoles seems weird, in Enterprise again they had wireless consoles(and if they were not wireless at least the cords went into the superstructure).

5: Then the insignia on the uniforms was the Delta Shield which was not adopted until after Kirks historic 5-year mission(Yes I am that much of a hard core fan), in The Original Series every ship and station had their own insignia.

6: During the fight we see the Kelvin firing the normal beam-type phasers, and a blueish-white pulse-type phaser which was not developed until the 24th Century for the Defiant Class.

7: The design of the ship is that the Nacelle in on the ventral(bottom) of the saucer and the engineering section is on the dorsal(top) of the saucer, when the captain goes to the shuttlebay he has to go up from the bridge yet he rides the turbolift down into the engineering section.

8: When they evacuated the Kelvin why the hell would someone repel down, why would there be a big open space like that on a ship(space is limited on a starship).

9: Later in the movie 'Pike' says that Kirks father saved 800 people, so a Kelvin Class starship has a crew of 800, and is supposed to be a similar size to a Miranda Class starship that has a crew of 80, the TOS Enterprise only had a crew of 400, the first ship to have a crew size close to 800 was the Galaxy with a crew of 1016.

10: In the time that they are the evacuate using shuttles, they are close to the Klingon Empire not very close but close enough as a point of reference, how many shuttles does that ship have, and those shuttles only have impulse nacelles, and NO WARP DRIVE, it would take at least 3 weeks for Starfleet to send a rescue.

11: Later in the movie the Enterprise, is constructed on the surface of the Earth no starship was ever built on the surface of the Earth, but it was constructed using sensor data from the Kelvin's battle with the Narada so since the Narada is a Romulan mining ship augmented with Borg tech, Starfleet now has Borg tech scans why is the Enterprise not more advanced and able to withstand more than one shot from the Narada.

12: Now the Romulans, why do they not have their brow ridge they are from the future after Nemesis so they should have it. Why if they look like Vulcans why not use subterfuge and pretend to be Vulcans, that is what Romulans do.

13: After the Kelvin collides with the Narada it is disabled, why does the stars gravity well not pull it in to it?

That was mostly just the beginning does anyone want me to continue my "ranting"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by volkov2006

!WARNING I AM A HARDCORE STAR TREK NERD YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!

Okay let me start:

1:The set up for the first movie is that a star near Romulus was going to go nova. The Romulans ask for either Vulcan/Federation support, even if there was a treaty after Nemesis they are very arrogant and more than likely would have never asked for help even if the knew they were doomed. Then the Vulcans come up with this 'Red Matter' which just seems really out of nowhere to be used to create a black hole to suck up the nova, which seems really weird because the Romulans could have done that themselves, their ships are powered by 'Artificial Singularities' which is just a fancy term for Artificial BLACK HOLE.

2: When we see the USS Kelvin in the first scene it is supposed to be before the timeline splits, so should the details of the ship and crew reflect that, and then the timeline changes after the death of Kirks father.

3: The uniforms: the colors are all wrong even in Enterprise we had the colors set up(Red, Gold, Blue) why were they all of a sudden different.

4: the antennas on all of the consoles seems weird, in Enterprise again they had wireless consoles(and if they were not wireless at least the cords went into the superstructure).

5: Then the insignia on the uniforms was the Delta Shield which was not adopted until after Kirks historic 5-year mission(Yes I am that much of a hard core fan), in The Original Series every ship and station had their own insignia.

6: During the fight we see the Kelvin firing the normal beam-type phasers, and a blueish-white pulse-type phaser which was not developed until the 24th Century for the Defiant Class.

7: The design of the ship is that the Nacelle in on the ventral(bottom) of the saucer and the engineering section is on the dorsal(top) of the saucer, when the captain goes to the shuttlebay he has to go up from the bridge yet he rides the turbolift down into the engineering section.

8: When they evacuated the Kelvin why the hell would someone repel down, why would there be a big open space like that on a ship(space is limited on a starship).

9: Later in the movie 'Pike' says that Kirks father saved 800 people, so a Kelvin Class starship has a crew of 800, and is supposed to be a similar size to a Miranda Class starship that has a crew of 80, the TOS Enterprise only had a crew of 400, the first ship to have a crew size close to 800 was the Galaxy with a crew of 1016.

10: In the time that they are the evacuate using shuttles, they are close to the Klingon Empire not very close but close enough as a point of reference, how many shuttles does that ship have, and those shuttles only have impulse nacelles, and NO WARP DRIVE, it would take at least 3 weeks for Starfleet to send a rescue.

11: Later in the movie the Enterprise, is constructed on the surface of the Earth no starship was ever built on the surface of the Earth, but it was constructed using sensor data from the Kelvin's battle with the Narada so since the Narada is a Romulan mining ship augmented with Borg tech, Starfleet now has Borg tech scans why is the Enterprise not more advanced and able to withstand more than one shot from the Narada.

12: Now the Romulans, why do they not have their brow ridge they are from the future after Nemesis so they should have it. Why if they look like Vulcans why not use subterfuge and pretend to be Vulcans, that is what Romulans do.

13: After the Kelvin collides with the Narada it is disabled, why does the stars gravity well not pull it in to it?

That was mostly just the beginning does anyone want me to continue my "ranting"?

---

Great. Now how about your analysis of the movie we're actually discussing? :rolleyes:

~BB~