posted
I'm doing my best to withhold judgement, but it's hard. Everything so far has falt like a slap in Trek's face. I know that's melodramatic, but the established canon is there. To not take that into account is laziness. And as a writer myself, I cannot abide lazy writing.
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
Daniel Butler
I'm a Singapore where is my boat
Member # 1689
posted
Just for the sake of argument, has anyone got a good cap of the Ent from The Cage?
Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
Two things: First, the wrong font and size of the "USS Enterprise" on the hull could be for artistic reasons. When the camera pulls up in front of the saucer, you have to be able to clearly read the name on the hull. Otherwise, not many people would be able to recognize what it's supposed to be. Second, we don't know if it is the complete ship. The final shot (the camera pulling up from below the saucer) in the youtube trailer is too dark to make out any details. But maybe it's just the saucer sitting next to the unfinished nacelles. Without the secondary hull and all that.
BTW, from all I've seen so far, I expect them to honor canon more than Berman ever did on his shows. You may quote me next christmas. As for the E looking different that the original: well, what did you expect? They dodged that bullet in TMP by giving her a refit, complete with additional detail. Assuming they had just updated the original as they do here, I'm pretty sure the bitching in 1979 would have been similar to that of 2008. The TOS E does not work on the big screen without alterations. Simple as that, IMO.
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Anyone on here who knows naval stuff know when the nomencalture usually gets painted on? Seems silly to have the name on before the hull's even finished...
And actually, in one of the earlier shots, we're panning around behind the ship and the two objects in the forground jutting up at an angle seem to be the nacelle pylons. I always preferred the novel/fandom approach of having the saucer built on the ground and then flying up on thrusters or impulse engines to be fitted to the engineering section that had been assembled in orbit.
I'm interested to see how they reconcile certain things, like the Enterprise being captained by April and Pike before Kirk got her, like Kirk being ten years old when the Enterprise was launched, like McCoy and Scotty being close to twenty years older than Chekov, like none of them having met before all being assigned to the Entperprise just before "Where No Man...", like the Republic, the Farragut, Ben Finney, Gary Mitchell, Ruth, Carol Marcus, the Vulcanian Expedition, Garth of Izar, or the ship Kirk commanded before the Enterprise...
You get the idea. *heh*
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I don't think it's at all unreasonable to expect a ship like the Enterprise to have maybe a few big refits over her operational life - repairing damage sustained in exploration duties, fitting out new technologies etc.
It could be that the Enterprise in the new movie is the ship looking as it did when it was first built, and by the time we came to see it under Pike's command it had already had a major refit. It might even have had another one after Pike's mission and the start of Kirk's. Another possibility is that what the teaser trailer is showing us is not the Enterprise being constructed but rather it undergoing a complete keel-up refit between April's last mission and Pike's first one. That would allow for the ship to have been in existence for longer and still have it on the ground in pieces being soldered together. Thoughts?
Ship aside, I do think they are going to have a hard time trying to fit all of the crew into this film believably - for the older crew, there is enough leeway but Chekov? I think he said he was 22 in "Who mourns for Adonis?" (though I might be wrong, anyone got a clearer recollection?) so unless he's meant to be the Wesley Crusher of the group, he's going to be way too young to have been in Starfleet when Kirk, Spock et al were still in the early stages of their careers.
One thing is for sure - it's going to be an interesting trip to the cinema later this year. I can't help but think, though, that we are all in for a year of bitching, whining, moaning, wailing and gnashing of teeth similar to the one that took place in the run-up to the Transformers movie coming out in 2007. :-)
-------------------- Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur
Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
Perhaps we're not going to be seeing these characters all in the same time period, but in different periods. You could have our young Chekov being seen just as he's coming on to the Enterprise for the first time during Kirk's command and not seeing him at the Academy with Kirk.
-------------------- Is it Friday yet?
Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Could be, and would certainly be intersting to the likes of us, but I doubt it will be like Dat suggests - too complicated for the Trek virgins they are trying to lure into the cinema.
The further on this rumbles the more pissed off I'm getting. At me! I hate the whole idea of a reboot, but that trailer still made me gurgle with anticipation in an unanutral way. It's just not fair.
-------------------- I have plenty of experience in biology. I bought a Tamagotchi in 1998... And... it's still alive.
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
Teh PW
Self Impossed Exile (This Space for rent)
Member # 1203
posted
here's more beer bottles in stew (since im still simmering over my flame job with the Washington Noobjob 'E'):
yeah, they got someone to play a youthful chekov and Sulu... does it mean we'll see more than 5 minutes of them in the film?
with old Karl as 'Doc', think of how much screen time he'll soak up...
posted
"The Man Trap." Not the first produced episode of the series proper, but the first aired. I think "Balance of Terror" was first produced, and he was in that too.
quote:Originally posted by The Ginger Beacon: I hate the whole idea of a reboot, but that trailer still made me gurgle with anticipation in an unanutral way. It's just not fair.
I wasn't sure (and am still not entirely certain, if I'm honest) whether this was to be a reboot or something that would fit in with the established backstory, but the official site for the movie has the following text on there:
"Synopsis: From director J.J. Abrams (�Mission: Impossible III,� �Lost� and �Alias�) and screenwriters Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzman (�TRANSFORMERS,� �MI: III�) comes a new vision of the greatest space adventure of all time, �Star Trek,� featuring a young, new crew venturing boldly where no man has gone before."
Seems to point more in the direction of a reboot than anything else. Not that I think that would be the very worst thing in the world ever, but it's interesting to see it worded that way. Has there been any clear indications from the producers of the movie on this point - is it expected to fit in with established background story between Enterprise and TOS, or is it a total reboot in a separate continuity?
Quick addition - Roberto Orci has answered some questions about the teaser trailer. There is some interesting stuff in there - they need a gravity well to balance warp nacelles? The only novel I recall mentioning that was "Prime Directive", and that stressed that going to warp in a gravity well could be disastrous...
[ January 20, 2008, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: FawnDoo ]
Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
How much power would it take to tractor a Constitution Class from the surface of San Francisco to orbit? Is it feasible? If so, would this solve the problem... at least pseudo-scientifically?
-------------------- "It speaks to some basic human needs: that there is a tomorrow, it's not all going to be over with a big splash and a bomb, that the human race is improving, that we have things to be proud of as humans." -Gene Roddenberry about Star Trek
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I suppose they could use tractor beams to get it started. The Enterprise doesn't seem to have any problems operating quite low down in an Earth-standard atmosphere - it does so in "Tomorrow is yesterday" quite easily, and is able to fly up into orbit from there. That is, bear in mind, with the ship damaged after an unexpected slingshot/time travel and low enough in the atmosphere to allow a 60s era jet fighter to fly up into visual range. Which would suggest that atmospheric flight isn't a terrible problem for the Constitution class. Maybe not what it was designed for, admittedly, but not outside it's capabilities.
The tractor beams might come in to get the ship moving in the first place. Once things are underway and the ship is high enough to do so safely, the impulse engines kick in and it's next stop, orbit.
Of course there is absolutely no reason why this teaser trailer has to make anyone choose between planetside and orbital construction methods. With the sheer amount of ships being built by the Federation, they might use both methods. Each one might have advantages and disadvantages that the other doesn't, but from the Federation's perspective, would it care? It's a busy, thriving and increasingly under threat interstellar civilization. I dare say it doesn't care where the ships are built as much as it does that they are online, operational and ready to go when needed.
Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
Daniel Butler
I'm a Singapore where is my boat
Member # 1689
posted
I figured if it's got artificial gravity, inertial dampers, and impulse engines that make it lighter with static warp fields, that it must be able to 'float' in an anti-gravity fashion. The UFP doesn't seem to have trouble manipulating powerful gravitational and magnetic fields (and quite probably nuclear forces as well, in the transporter).
Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
