Dates
· UTC
STAR TREK
Archived55 replies · 2,057 views
This is an archived legacy thread. Replies are closed, but the discussion is preserved.
← Back to Behind Closed Doors
Showing posts 31–56 of 56
↑ First post
Latest post ↓
MONTY wrote: Some cracking new photies of the new film on the official website. All looking proper retro and faithful to the old series bar Chris Pine's (Kirk) BLACK shirt. What's that all about? Got to be Gold!
Beam me up Sylar, hic, oops
I used to have a Kligon Battle Cruiser as a kid but I left the cloaking device on and never found it again 
MONTY wrote: OOOH! OOH! It's the NEW trailer!!
... up and running at the official site in glorious HD!
DigitalWaters wrote:
the film could still be crap
Yeah, as I said before there's echoes of The Phantom Menace in me head...
Did I see a shot in the tralier of a starship being built in the desert? If it is, it shows that those responsible are not only imbelices, but have never seen a single episode of Star Trek. Enterprise and all her kin were built in orbit, as all large space vessels will have to be...they are creatures of the void, children of the vacum, they would die in the presence of gravity. I mean, forget sci-fi, let's talk basic engineering.....with the secondary hull (engineering section) sitting on the ground, the strains on both the engine naceles and the link between the primary and secondary hull, while they would be minute compared to those imparted by the vessel's drive, are in the wrong plain, and do not have the benefit of bullshit structural integrity fields and inertial dampers to keep them from crumbling. Isn't Voyager's Intrepid Class ship repeatedly referred to as the largest starfleet vessel which can do a planetary landing?
Oh, and how come the inside of Enterprise looks, not like it did in the series (lots of colour) but like it did after it's boring 1970's refit (after the 5 year mission).
TIP: When your bread and butter is depending on geeks, try not to laugh in their faces.
Doctor? wrote: Did I see a shot in the tralier of a starship being built in the desert? If it is, it shows that those responsible are not only imbelices, but have never seen a single episode of Star Trek. Enterprise and all her kin were built in orbit, as all large space vessels will have to be...they are creatures of the void, children of the vacum, they would die in the presence of gravity. I mean, forget sci-fi, let's talk basic engineering.....with the secondary hull (engineering section) sitting on the ground, the strains on both the engine naceles and the link between the primary and secondary hull, while they would be minute compared to those imparted by the vessel's drive, are in the wrong plain, and do not have the benefit of bullshit structural integrity fields and inertial dampers to keep them from crumbling. Isn't Voyager's Intrepid Class ship repeatedly referred to as the largest starfleet vessel which can do a planetary landing?
Yeah I thought that when I saw the first teaser trailer.
But I suppose Mr Abrams is going for the Tom Cruise/Maverick look of "Oh I'm so gonna fly that thing!"
Doctor? wrote: Did I see a shot in the tralier of a starship being built in the desert?
Do ya mean this image?
I have no problem with the big E being built on Earth. After all, it's dedication plaque says "Built in San Francisco Fleetyards"...
Monsieur Round & Round wrote:
Doctor? wrote: Did I see a shot in the tralier of a starship being built in the desert?
Do ya mean this image?
I have no problem with the big E being built on Earth. After all, it's dedication plaque says "Built in San Francisco Fleetyards"...
Which are not in Frisco but in orbit, as mentioned here and there. Enterprise D and Defiant are listed as being built at Utopia Planitia, but again, in Mars orbit, not the surface. The orbital construction of the ships was one of the few bits of Trek that made any sense....so....best get rid of that then.....sigh. I'm sure the local Enviro-mentalists wouldn't mind one bit about a warp core being fired up just down the road (at impulse speeds a low-level warp field is used to reduce inertial mass or it will barely budge)....cos trust me, that thing isn't taking off on it's RCS any more than the space shittle does.
I hate it when they try to "broaden the appeal" of sci fi.....it just makes it moron friendly......and half the reason sci fi geeks like sci fi is that they hate moronic stories 
MONTY wrote:
Yeah I thought that when I saw the first teaser trailer.
He doesn't, he just sits there and (paaaaaaaaaaaause) yells at the guy who flies it 
Speaking of which this new guy had better be able to (paaaaaaaaaaaaaaause) pause like Shatner or the movie's fucked before (paaaaaaaaaaause) it even begins.
Doctor? wrote:
Which are not in Frisco but in orbit, as mentioned here and there.
How do you know? There's no on-screen evidence of that. Yes, in TMP we get see the Connie refit in drydock, but fully prepared and ready to go. And why would an orbital facility be christened after an earth city? What next? The Cheshire Moon Complex?
Notice the "San francisco, Calif." bit. Now, unless the state of California has moved into a low earth orbit...
Monsieur Round & Round wrote:
Notice the "San francisco, Calif." bit. Now, unless the state of California has moved into a low earth orbit...
Well, I dunno, maybe you're right, but I was certain I've read the SF yards were just named so out of tradition.....I mean Utopia Planitia is on the Martian surface and it is specifically mentioned in TNG and DS9 that ships are built in orbit above that.
Is that the plate from the original series? Odd, when it was made, it seems they'd not yet decided she was Constitution class.
BTW....having looked at that pic, I think it's less likely they've made SF FLAT by the 23rd century ;)
Maybe the ship is built by union workers on Earth, as required by Federation of Planets by law, then assembled in space? Damn liberals!
As the good Doctor pointed out, it would be retarded to build the ship on Earth for any reason you could think of. The idea of a large spaceship colony that only ever orbited was one of the basic good ideas to start the show in the beginning.
I wonder how they will present the back story of Earth and the inhabitated planets/cultures that make up the Federation of Planets and the surrounding area. The original concept of the Star Trek universe (from like 1964-66) from the two pilots and first season is a good science fiction concept. Maybe crude and naive, but still impresses me more than 40 years later, at least what they were trying to do, for a broadcast network TV show no less.
The original concept faded over the years until Voyager when the concept was to basically drive thru space aimlessly like some arrogant purposeless cowboys. I gave up on Enterprise very quickly, I still can't believe how Earth built their first absurdly expensive interstellar spaceship to have some hick drive around the universe aimlessly to see whatever they find, with no specified scientific or political purpose other than to show how superior humans are. Every episode I saw, the captain practically caused the destruction of the Enterprise based on showing some human prinicple cause that is what we are all about, arrogant idiots I guess.
I bailed on Enterprise after seeing an episode about the Captain's dog being sick (over which, as you say, he was willing to risk the lives of his ship and crew).
There are already programs about sick dogs. If I wished to enjoy the suffering of innocent animals I would watch those. When Rolf Harris is overseeing an operation on a Klingon targ, then we can have sick dogs in Trek. It's the same with all the "soapyness" that crept in, even in later TNG episodes.....I watch sci fi cos I do not like soaps, so if you turn all the sci fi into soap, WTF will I be able to watch......retarded network thinking always destroys and homongenises.
Trek started with stories by sci-fi authors, which were then sanitized for a mass tv audience. But it eventually became a case of any old writer or any old Murder She Wrote script could be used, and then peppered with techspeak (which in the absence of plot context is just gibberish).
I've always had a mental battle between my desire to see a series like Clarke's Rama books made into movies, and the knowledge of the rape that would be perpetrated against such a classic (need I mention my fatwa against a certain short arsed scientologist for his destruction of THE sci-fi book).
Perfection wrote: I used to have a Kligon Battle Cruiser as a kid but I left the cloaking device on and never found it again
You'll need to circle Uranus if you're looking for Klingons.
Having read a few reports on some movie scenes shown by JJ Abrams to the international media (sadly no NOOL hack was invited...), I can assure you that the NCC-1701 was built in the
Riverside Fleetyards, Iowa
Don't believe me? Read this
http://trekmovie.com/2008/11/19/trekmovie-star-trek-trailer-analysis/
or if you don't wanna run through it all, here's the quote:
Kirk sees USS Enterprise NCC - 1701 being built (in Iowa) (DETAIL: Federation flag on building in distance) (CANON ALERT: Not being build in "San Francisco, CALIF.")
Doctor? wrote:
Is that the plate from the original series? Odd, when it was made, it seems they'd not yet decided she was Constitution class.
BTW....having looked at that pic, I think it's less likely they've made SF FLAT by the 23rd century ;)
Yes, it's from TOS.
From wikipedia......... "According to The Making of Star Trek by Gene Roddenberry and Stephen E. Whitfield, the components of the Enterprise were built at the San Francisco Navy Yards and the vessel itself was constructed in space."
Dunno why this geezer Roddenberry thinks he knows so much?
Oh, and from StarTrek.com
"Launched in 2245, the original and illustrious starship U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701 was built in the San Francisco Yards orbiting Earth."
Thank fuck for that, I thought I was losing my marbles.......that something had become "un-written" in the best Orwellian tradition. Thankfully the reality is that the new film has been made by people who have never seen star trek.....sigh, just like war of the worlds was made by people who'd never read the book.....or ANY book judging by the pile of rotting corpses that the film is (instead of SHOWING).
EDIT: It may be argued that worrying about how and where a ficticious, future vessel is/was/will-be constructed is not the act of one in posession of the full complement of marbles.....but only by people who want gobbed! ;)
I will reluctantly confess to being a secret Trekker once upon a time (it was rural Scotland... what else was I meant to do? Smack?) but the prospect of this new film has definitely not succeeded in "re-energizing" my interest in the franchise, Jim.
I was a big fan of TNG and Deep Space Nine with the latter being my personal favourite of the bunch. Over the course of seven years DS9 turned the notion of "safe PC Trek" on it's head and took a few risks. It unfortunately - like TNG - looks quite dated now but it tackled quite a few hot potatoes (race, sexuality, war, religion etc) well enough to make it addictive viewing. I liked the idea the main characters had a slew of skeletons in their closet and were basically not perfect, something which TNG was frequently a bit irritating about. Plus I fancied Dax 
even the shorter one they replaced Terry Farrell with in the final season 
Voyager was utter garbage and as Doc pointed out little more than a soap opera which happened to be set in space. Seven years of that nonsense finished off the "90s" Star Trek as it stood and left the not-that-bad Enterprise on shaky ground; no wonder it tanked after four years... when it was cancelled I remember thinking I would've far preferred seven years of T'Pol in that jumpsuit and proper sci-fi stories over Mulgrew's slapped-arse face any day.
Yeah, Voyager really was the worst thing that could've happened to Star Trek. Such a cynical show as well.. any time the ratings dropped they just clumsily inserted a Borg storyline hoping it would bring in the viewing figures. Fcuk all originality or creativity.
Mind you, if this new film manages to make Star Trek "sexy" even for even a nano-second I'll eat my phaser
The Sylar bloke from Heroes will bring in a lot of punters straight away I would imagine?
I'll watch it of course but it'll probably be uTorrent over cinema ticket.
LiamShed wrote: This is what I am afraid the new Trek Movie will be....
James T. Kirk, a womaniser? Gratuitous shots of bare female flesh? Characters used as comic relief?
That never happened in the Star Trek I knew, yeah right...
