Neat stuff. I do agree with the other folks: that scene SCREAMS Goldsmith. Ashame he didn't live long enough to score the movie.
As much as I loved Goldsmith - and I do - he was really running out of steam near the end. His Nemesis score is a full on rehash of TMP with one or two (uninspired) new compositions. I'm glad we have someone like Giacchino on this project musically. Does anyone know if he was involved with the trailer?
I'm reminded of a quote from the TNG Tech Manual (paraphrasing): "If a starship could be created with the transporter, they wouldn't need it to begin with..."
I think a lot of you need to quit tugging - it's a film that's intended to get a mass audience in - so surely they are going to use things that will get people in - someone welding "wondering what he's welding..." and so on... just tug into your socks when it comes out and cry "raped my childhood!" and let's leave you in the basements...
Yes I do. I noted the original (if minimal) use of music near the start - largely precussion - and I was wondering if that was his work.
I don't know for sure. I know he did the trailer music for Mission: Impossible III that eventually found itself on the film's album so it's entirely plausible.
Dennis, you just used terms that have real meaning in a way that demonstrates you're not sufficiently conversant in what they actually mean. "Molecular bonds" are also known, more commonly, as covalent bonds. This is the way that chemical compounds are created... two or more atoms of materials share an electron orbit, and the associated electron... ie, they share a "valence level"... and that creates a very strong bond between these two atoms. Molecules that are linear in nature can bend... ones that have a structure (hexagonal planar structures are reasonably common, for instance) form much more rigid materials. Ionic bonds, on the other hand, involve no physical electron sharing. Rather, an electron is TRANSFERRED from a low-electron-affinity atom to a high-affinity one. The charged atoms (or "ions") are then drawn together by their opposing charges. This is, for example how salt is formed... and the lack of any unbound electrons is why these materials, in pure form and without crystalline flaws and crystal boundaries throughout, tend to be very hard and very transparent. No loose electrons to bounce photons back... Metallic bonds involve the sharing of electrons. That is what makes them METALS. That's why the metals in the periodic table all fall largely together. They have a lot of electrons that are loosely held, and some of them "float away" when you have a lot of metal atoms together. REACT a metal with something else... say, iron with oxygen... you no longer have a metal. AT ALL. You have (in the case I just gave)... ferrous oxide, aka RUST. It no longer has any of the characteristics that make it a metal. Further, the rust MOLECULES (there is no such thing as a "metal molecule") are held together by very light bonds... it's remarkably fragile. The only way to get a strong bond out of that sort of material is to use IONIC bonds. For instance... sodium is a metal. Sodium chloride (table salt) is not a metal, it's what's referred to as a salt (there are MANY salts, by the way). But it's held together because the sodium transfers electrons to the chlorine, and the charges between the two ions hold them together. My point? THERE ARE NO MOLECULAR BONDS... EVER... IN METALS. There cannot be. To create such a bond causes it to cease to BE a metal. It becomes something else... a salt. Theoretically, if you put two perfectly smooth, planar piece of the same metal against each other, they would literally become a single piece of metal. The "electron sea" in each part would merge with that in the other part. Unfortunately, there are no pure monocrystaline, perfectly clean and perfectly planar surfaces in the universe, as far as we know. So you can't REALLY check that. But if there WERE, we could "weld" without any tools, without any heat, without any pressure. Which WOULD be pretty damned impressive as a construction technique. That's all purely speculative. It's just as valid to say "the TOS enterprise had variations, we just couldn't see them on 1966 TV sets), or "the TOS Enterprise had a protective coating applied over the hull." Nanomachines might "fuse" things together... but all you'd really be talking about would be little robots performing welding. And in order to do so, they'd need to be in between the parts being welded, and would have to weld in material to fill in the gaps as they "backed out." This would actually be a lot LESS acceptable than a resistance weld or a "stir weld" using conventional technologies. Gap-filling welds result in not one, but TWO boundaries... and two possible regions for flaws to creap in. And flaws ALWAYS creep in... it's entropy at work.
Its the same old USS Enterprise......but on Steroids!!!! Old Sly Stalone would be proud!! Seriously, It's not as bad as I thought it would be. Its the same design but beefier, bigger and has more fine detail.
I was kinda iffy on going to see Cloverfield, but then I saw this pic, and may I say, that I'm on my way out the door to go see it as I write this. This pic looks amazOng!!! one beef, though... the "USS Enterprise" on the hull should be convex from our perspective, not concave. I dunno if it's already been mentioned or not, it's just that I noticed. At any rate, this looks FANTASTAMAZING and is now my laptop wallpaper.
On the TOS version of the registry, the "NCC-1701" follows the curvature of the disk circumference, but the "u.s.s. enterprise" does not - it crosses the dome of the saucer top. It's only with the TMP refit that both parts of the registry curve along the same axis.
Cary, you're clearly very well-versed in the specifics of your field of expertise, but IMHO you're not really seeing the forest for the trees. What I think that I and others are trying to say is that sometimes -- sometimes -- Trek was forced to resort to showing things onscreen that were woefully contemporary in order to save money. The terrible American Tourister luggage in TOS is a prime example. And I think the scenes of people sitting on hulls and welding two pieces of something together and having it look so very much like it does today stirs in many of us a disconnect as it relates to a society that (a) controls gravity, (b) travels at a thousand times the speed of light, and -- perhaps most fantastically of all -- (c) possesses transporter technology. Any ONE of these things does indeed border on the unbelievably advanced as they relate to the commonplace nature of the way they're portrayed in Trek. I don't question your authority on the subject of welding and the various types of bonds, but I still contend that there's no way in hell that starships will be built in such a manner as welding in the 23rd century. The scientific advancements in the last hundred years arguably surpass everything learned in the previous 5,000. That rate of invention and creation and scientific discovery will, by most accounts, only increase as we proceed along the pathways of time. Dennis may have misspoken, but his general approach is valid -- a society that sees such fantastical technologies as routine elements of their existence will almost certainly have moved beyond welding as we know it today. IMHO -- specifics aside. Terminology can sometimes be misleading, too. The same or similar term could be used in the future as today and yet have morphed into a definition that's very different. Will starship crews or even society in general really call things "computers" in nearly 300 years? I doubt it. And I can't believe, for instance, that the nomenclature on the starship hulls is "painted" on in the same manner that we describe painting today. Why? They would simply have better and more flexible & efficient ways of achieving the same thing than we do today. I can say, though, that it's heartening to know we agree on what we've seen so far of this new Enterprise. I am definitely going to reserve judgement until I see more.
The one thing that people seem to be ignoring here with the whole welding thing, is that even in the TNG tech manual, there was mention, in the history of the Enterprise D's construction, of the first parts of the structural skeleton of the vessel being "Gamma Welded" together. Even if they DO use something of the like in the film, which I doubt, modern welders are designed the way they are for a reason, in order to make it as usable as possible. Perhaps they only happen to LOOK like modern welding devices, because a welder is designed in the best way they could think of to weld something, at least, given modern technological constraints. We can't even guess as to what the actual technological background of the device, so how do we know that it isn't some form of advanced (insert technobabble)welding device. As for the sparks? ANY process which can fuse two pieces of metal together to make one is almost certain to involve a fairly large amount of energy, a good bit of which is most likely going to be wasted. This energy needs to disperse somehow, so who says it isn't in the form of sparks? As for the ribbing on the nacelles, as some people interpret it, if you look closely, you can see a scaffolding running along the side of each nacelle. These scaffolds have a number of lights on them in a row, most clearly visible on the starboard nacelle. These appear to each cast a relatively localized light, and create a strong highlight where their reflection and bloom appears on the hull.
When you look at the detail visible at front of the nacelles, you wonder If the same detail will be applied to the depiction of the warp effect the engines generate. You can almost picture those turbine blades scything through glowing, swirling plasma as the warp field rises up, out of the nacelles in a twinned vortex pattern that eventually engulfs the ship - or something similar in line with the attention to detail I suspect will be all over this film. I think it's safe to say that the cheesy star streak effects and such have hit the cutting room floor for the last time.
Well damn. Everything was looking great. We have a great director, writers, and cast. There's lots of hype and what seems to be a phenominal trailer. Everything is perfect and falling into place, right? No. Because some jackass is welding on the hull of the Enterprise. Oh well. Maybe the next movie will work out better.
Hey, come on. Leave the freaking welder alone. He's paid up on his Union Dues for the bloody month. What did HE do to pee in your cornflakes. For crying out loud, it's not like the Mugatu was doing the welding or anything. Now THAT might be a serious canon violation. Remember: no Mugatu, no Peace!
I'm not happy about the notion of the ship being assembled on the ground. Sure, make some components down here, but the image of a ship of the stars resting its keel in a muddy basin while insects, rodents, and rain have free access to its vulnerable interior leaves me uneasy. How long did it take to build the Enterprise? A few years? How many squirrels hid acorns in our beloved starship? How many dessicated wasp nests lurk within the hull? Dead flies and moths near light panels? Every time the huge and vastly powerful Starship Enterprise whooshes past the camera to Sandy Courage's triumphant fanfare, we'll now know the truth ... that within that duranium facade and hidden behind the walls and bulkheads are unswept piles of leaves and milkweed seeds that clustered unnoticed as the ship was assembled around them. Withered husks of starved spiders shudder within their dusty webs every time Kirk demands more power from Scotty -- entombed forever in ink-black darkness behind subjunction panels on every deck.
Good point...maybe that guy was using a 23rd-century gamma welder...maybe that's what a gamma welder looks like. And to all those out there who are taken aback by the sight of the welder, the bottom line is this: it's only a teaser. Things that appear in teasers are not canon and are not even required to be 100% true to the Star Trek in-universe reality. The construction of the ship is just a metaphor. Someone on another thread mentioned that some ST film teaser trailer (I don't know which film) showed scenes from Star Trek projected on the side of the Enterprise and the one for FC showed a Borg ship that happened to be the shape of the Enterprise/Starfleet emblem. Yeah - these are ridiculously extreme examples, but the point is they are only scenes from a teaser trailer. The ship as a projection screen is irrelevant; the Borg ship/Starfleet emblem is irrelevant; the welding is irrelevant.
^ Good point. The trailer could be a metaphor for building a movie set as much as the ship itself. The re-telling of the trek myth could be what's "Under Construction". Anyway, they've got a year to ash-can the ship exterior (and that "filthy" ground bound construction dock) if the fan grizzling grows loud enough (I suspect it all only exists digitally). Mind you they might be just as willing to ash-can at least part of the existing fan base if the demographics are aimed much larger.