Discussion in 'Denver, CO' started by Zoom_Cthooga, Mar 3, 2008.
Eomer McCoy?! Seriouthly?! I'm gonna pay real money just to see that.
wellllll i want to see this movie now!
ok saw the preview last..wowowowowowowow!!!!
i can NOT wait. we have a date now...may 8, 2009. man oh man. i am soo excited!!!
I just saw the preview last night. *squeeee!* I think my fiance's hand is mushed permanently.
"What is your name?"
"James Tiberius Kirk."
Dude the FXs WOW...
NOW i have to go get earbuds at lunch!
just watched it and i have to say...that aint yo mommas star trek! wow
I liked some things in the trailer, I just did the frame by frame thing and caught lots of cool stuff you don't see at first.
I'm having a hard time getting past the ludicrousness of building a starship on land rather than in space, it belies a total lack of interest in either basic common sense, science fact, or series continuity on the part of the writers/directors/producers and i'm inclined to believe that will permeate the entire production.
I was willing to let it go from the first trailer as something they were just doing as a catchy visual. But based on the second trailer, it seems to be used as a major plot point.
That bugged me too, Michael. There better be a darn good explanation. Trek fans are way to tech savvy to fall for terrestrial drydock.
was enterprise constructed in space dock?
I didn't think they built anything on the ground. Just Zefram's ship and the Warp 5 engine among other ship components. All else was built in spacedock, so I thought. Hmmm...time for some for google-ing.
This has been a major point of discussion on various boards since the first trailer came out. There has actually been nothing shown or said and little written about how the Enterprise was first built, most of the opinions come from TMP and the drydock there. As to building it on the surface, she's about the same size as an aircraft carrier so we already have the techniques, the only tricky part would be supporting the Enterprise's unusual shape.
I'm not sure if this counts, but Enterprise NX-01 was built in spacedock. Or at least her components were assembled there. Are they using Enterprise's continuity?
Hmm, interesting. It looks good for the most part. I think the one thing that bugs me is that there seems to be just a little too much of the current day in it, something about some of the scenes and one or two phrases. But that's probably not the whole movie. Definitely different from previous Trek, though!
got my first glimpse last night.
wow! looks awesome!
just need to remember this movie wasn't made for trek fans...it is made for the general audience...that is the only way that this franchise is going to get back off the ground...JMO.
The issues of Star Trek continuity were third on my list of objections, it's the fact that YOU JUST WOULDN'T DO IT. You would not build a craft designed to travel in space, in the atmosphere, let alone on the ground. The energy and resources required to get it out through the atmosphere into space just wouldn't make sense. We do it now because we don't have any options. But even the International Space Station was built in pieces on Earth and assembled in space.
It's not about making it "for" Trek fans, it's about making it "for" stupid people.
well Michael...most people are stupid.
I won't argue with that
Michael, you almost got a snort.
what better way to make sure it CAN land on a planet (how many times did Voyager end up on a planet??) than to make it escape the earth's atmosphere as its' first test?
(not that I think it should be. Impulse drive inside an atmosphere? not good. Even thrusters might be a bad idea...although they would save the cost of transporting the material and contractors to space... and theoretically the structure is made of something very strong, so structurally it might be easier to assemble in gravity, no zero-g training for the welders... )
If you want the actual production history, not the fictional inside the story one:
Roddenberry originally intended the Enterprise to be the Paramount water tower, the one that was on the lot. That way they wouldn't actually have to build anything and save money by just shooting the water tower. When the actual Enterprise designs came in, he really liked it and decided to go with the model for the ship.
When one of the producers pointed out that the way the ship was designed it could never land on a planet, then they came up with the idea of the transporters. So the transporter was not some brilliant inspiration on the producers' part, it was a solution to a production problem (most ideas in TV are).
White and Nerdy!
Some would argue that Enterprise should never be counted in the ST continuity, however the movie is supposed to fit within the established continuity. This includes everything from TOS up through Enterprise. However we are once again faced with the fact that they never showed how the NX-01 was built, yes it was shown in spacedock but it was also clear it was an operational vessel undergoing tests. They do show the NX-02 Columbia being constructed within a spacedock in the episode "The Expanse".
This certainly counts as being in the continuity and one can presume that the NX-01 was built similarly.
Does this mean the NCC-1701 was built in the same fashion? From an engineering standpoint I would tend to think so, we generally don't go backwards in our building methods without really good reasons.
From a design standpoint I have no problem with construction being done planetside since the ship should be sturdy enough structurally to take it. Once launched it of course can never land again but at that point who cares. The energy requirements of lifting it into orbit would of course be the defining element in why you'd build in space as opposed to the surface. But the economics of the Federation are not ours and it may be more cost effective to build a ship of that size on the surface and lift it into orbit than build in orbit and require specially trained crews and protection.
Of course depending on where they leave things at the end of the movie, the planetside construction will likely be part of the continuity from this point on regardless of our feelings and opinions.
I'm pretty sure JJ Abrams has stated on multiple occasions that that is not the case.
If that were true, there would be no way that Chekhov is part of the crew, a meeting with the Romulans, etc, etc.