Nerys Myk wrote:
The technology is already different in this timeline and the tech came from over a century in the future.
A future in which it was never seen before an Abrams film either, because previous creators were smarter than to effectively break the setting and premise by introducing it.
The first one makes sense. I forget if there was a reason in the film why they were in the ocean.
It looks cool when they come out, and Zoe Saldana looks hella sexy in a wetsuit. Far as I can tell, those are the reasons.
(And they're understandable reasons, just insufficient ones. I hear tell space is a pretty reliable source of cool visuals, and you don't need an ocean sequence to put Zoe Saldana in a sexy outfit.)
I think it's design is more than adequate for limited submersion. If it can stand the various extremes of space a little water won't hurt it.
It is stated incredibly super-clearly in the entirety of pre-Abrams canon that a ship the size of the Enterprise cannot and does not land. Yes, "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" notwithstanding. The nacelle-and-saucers design not being particularly aerodynamic or grav-friendly would be a pretty good reason.
Have this here Voyager featurette on the topic if you don't believe me:
The Bird of Prey can because it is small and aerodynamic. Voyager can because it is -- relative to the Enterprise -- likewise. Voyager made a big deal out of how it was a ship that could land, unlike larger starships that could not land.
And again: when not tempted by cool sea visuals and Zoe Saldana in a wetsuit, the creators of STID agree with this
. That's what the whole final-act "the Enterprise is crashing" thing is based on; the Enterprise was breaking up on entering atmosphere. Breaking canon is one thing, but they couldn't even manage it self-consistently.
There is again a term for that. It is Bad Writing.