RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,201
Posts: 5,436,896
Members: 24,948
Currently online: 452
Newest member: TedCarchidi

TrekToday headlines

Cumberbatch In Wax
By: T'Bonz on Oct 24

Trek Screenwriter Washington D.C. Appearance
By: T'Bonz on Oct 23

Two Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Oct 22

Pine In New Skit
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

Stewart In Holiday Film
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

The Red Shirt Diaries #8
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

IDW Publishing January Comics
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 8 2013, 08:35 PM   #211
Jackson_Roykirk
Commodore
 
Jackson_Roykirk's Avatar
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

Greg Cox wrote: View Post
JarodRussell wrote: View Post
Greg Cox wrote: View Post

Oooh! I like that!
Ha, but you can't put that scene into a novel, can you?
Is that a dare?

Maybe something like this:
...Deanna's generous bosom heaved beneath her uniform, uplifted by the corset that formed her wasp-like waist, as she slowly inhaled after her lungs were momentarily and suddenly evacuated by the unexpected sight of the Enterprise rising from the depths of the windswept desert dunes -- dunes like golden ripples of water having been stilled by a temporal anomaly.

Worf sauntered up to her from the direction of the suns setting behind the expanse of sand adjacent to the ancient stone edifice; a monument long abandoned by the race who once dwelled on this planet, but whose mummified kings still remain entombed within. Worf approached Deanna slowly, but deliberately, with a desire in his eyes that burned greater that the red orbs of this world's two stars descending on the horizon behind him. His brown sinewy chest bare except for his chainmail sash, which was framed by his expansive pectoral muscles like fleshy, but heavy, bronze bookends.

"Commander Riker will be quite occupied tonight with extracting sand grains from the nacelle vents", he boomed in a voice of which a baritone opera singer would be jealous, as Deanna turned away, feigning rejection to his obvious, but at the same time sublime, advances, and looked vacantly at the sheer veil of the nebula rising in the eastern sky beyond...

....or is that not quite your genre, Mr. Cox?



__________________

...With shoes that cut, and eyes that burn like cigarettes
With fingernails that shine like justice and a voice that is dark like tinted glass...

Last edited by Jackson_Roykirk; January 8 2013 at 10:47 PM. Reason: Speelling
Jackson_Roykirk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 8 2013, 11:10 PM   #212
Greg Cox
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Oxford, PA
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

Jackson_Roykirk wrote: View Post
Greg Cox wrote: View Post
JarodRussell wrote: View Post
Ha, but you can't put that scene into a novel, can you?
Is that a dare?

Maybe something like this:
...Deanna's generous bosom heaved beneath her uniform, uplifted by the corset that formed her wasp-like waist, as she slowly inhaled after her lungs were momentarily and suddenly evacuated by the unexpected sight of the Enterprise rising from the depths of the windswept desert dunes -- dunes like golden ripples of water having been stilled by a temporal anomaly.

Worf sauntered up to her from the direction of the suns setting behind the expanse of sand adjacent to the ancient stone edifice; a monument long abandoned by the race who once dwelled on this planet, but whose mummified kings still remain entombed within. Worf approached Deanna slowly, but deliberately, with a desire in his eyes that burned greater that the red orbs of this world's two stars descending on the horizon behind him. His brown sinewy chest bare except for his chainmail sash, which was framed by his expansive pectoral muscles like fleshy, but heavy, bronze bookends.

"Commander Riker will be quite occupied tonight with extracting sand grains from the nacelle vents", he boomed in a voice of which a baritone opera singer would be jealous, as Deanna turned away, feigning rejection to his obvious, but at the same time sublime, advances, and looked vacantly at the sheer veil of the nebula rising in the eastern sky beyond...
....or is that not quite your genre, Mr. Cox?

I take it you haven't read my vampire novels . . . .
__________________
www.gregcox-author.com
Greg Cox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 9 2013, 03:34 AM   #213
Tombfyre
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: Canada
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

I don't post often, however I felt I should weigh in on this.

I'm with the camp that doesn't necessarily like the idea. I view star trek like this:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/1492/images/1492home.jpg

[Image converted to link. Please be sure that images posted inline are hosted on your own web space. - M']

To me, it adds more depth to the universe if the big capitol ships CAN'T go into an atmosphere. It takes away some of the risk involved if you can just park your space battleships anywhere you please. Its not so much a Grrr.. technobable needed. Its more of a I don't want to see the universe diminished. I feel that the character of star trek is that you arrive in your big ship. You have a problem to solve, but you're going to have to go down in small parties to solve it.

No matter how you explain it... why they would need to bring the ship into a planet for anything other than an emergency doesn't make sense. They have shuttles, transporters...

I'm sure it'll look cool and be fun. But to me... its a blow to star treks core. Just saying because it looks cool... isn't to me the mark of a great director.

Last edited by M'Sharak; January 9 2013 at 05:24 AM. Reason: hotlinked image
Tombfyre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 9 2013, 03:43 AM   #214
The Creeper
Commodore
 
Location: Looking over your shoulder...
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

You cannot simply chalk it up to yet another Scotty Miracle?

Last edited by The Creeper; January 9 2013 at 04:13 AM.
The Creeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 9 2013, 03:48 AM   #215
Geoff Peterson
Fleet Admiral
 
Geoff Peterson's Avatar
 
Location: 20 feet from an outlet
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

Tombfyre wrote: View Post
I don't post often, however I felt I should weigh in on this.

I'm with the camp that doesn't necessarily like the idea. I view star trek like this:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/1492/images/1492home.jpg

To me, it adds more depth to the universe if the big capitol ships CAN'T go into an atmosphere. It takes away some of the risk involved if you can just park your space battleships anywhere you please. Its not so much a Grrr.. technobable needed. Its more of a I don't want to see the universe diminished. I feel that the character of star trek is that you arrive in your big ship. You have a problem to solve, but you're going to have to go down in small parties to solve it.

No matter how you explain it... why they would need to bring the ship into a planet for anything other than an emergency doesn't make sense. They have shuttles, transporters...

I'm sure it'll look cool and be fun. But to me... its a blow to star treks core. Just saying because it looks cool... isn't to me the mark of a great director.
Someone should tell Gene Roddenberry.



The only reason the Enterprise didn't land in TOS was the cost was too prohibitive. The transporters and shuttlecraft were cost saving measures.
__________________
Nerys Myk

Last edited by M'Sharak; January 9 2013 at 05:24 AM. Reason: image converted to link
Geoff Peterson is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 9 2013, 04:07 AM   #216
Jackson_Roykirk
Commodore
 
Jackson_Roykirk's Avatar
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

^
^^Exactly. Roddenberry wanted the Enterprise to be able to land, but the budget wouldn't allow for it. The fact still remains that in Roddenberry's original view of what he wanted Star Trek to be, the ship would land.

To tell you the truth, though, I like the idea of having smaller landing craft (shuttles), but I have no real philosophical issues with a big ship landing, either.
__________________

...With shoes that cut, and eyes that burn like cigarettes
With fingernails that shine like justice and a voice that is dark like tinted glass...
Jackson_Roykirk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 9 2013, 04:38 AM   #217
Tombfyre
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: Canada
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
The only reason the Enterprise didn't land in TOS was the cost was too prohibitive. The transporters and shuttlecraft were cost saving measures.
Haha, well i'm glad for that. I just really like the idea of parking in orbit of a planet and conducting whatever operations are needed using runabouts and such. It means you are restricted on resources, firepower, manpower, ect.

Gene Roddenberry was a great visionary of his time... but star trek developed its style because of some of those initial compromises.

I'm sure the movie will still be a blast to watch. Just prefer the old TNG\DS9 time. If JJ abrams really said that rerun comment.... that just arrogant. He'd have no movie to make if it wasn't for those reruns and those who enjoy them.
Tombfyre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 9 2013, 05:11 AM   #218
Geoff Peterson
Fleet Admiral
 
Geoff Peterson's Avatar
 
Location: 20 feet from an outlet
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

Rerun comment?
__________________
Nerys Myk
Geoff Peterson is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 9 2013, 10:35 AM   #219
Arpy
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

What they meant to do in TOS doesn't matter as much as what they did do.

There's nothing wrong with the preference of capital ships not being atmosphere-capable, and it does add a dash of faux verisimilitude that Trek's so famous/loved for.

I used to like the idea that ships couldn't travel in atmosphere, but it does make more sense to me that soooo advanced ships would be able to. Of course, it makes more sense that such ships wouldn't be welded together hull plate by visible hull plate but what can you do?
Arpy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 9 2013, 10:54 AM   #220
marksound
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Planet Carcazed
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

The Keeper wrote: View Post
You cannot simply chalk it up to yet another Scotty Miracle?
You need something done, you call the man who can do it. He'll bitch and moan and tell you it can't be done, but he'll figure it out.

Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
Tombfyre wrote: View Post
I don't post often, however I felt I should weigh in on this.

I'm with the camp that doesn't necessarily like the idea. I view star trek like this:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/1492/images/1492home.jpg

To me, it adds more depth to the universe if the big capitol ships CAN'T go into an atmosphere. It takes away some of the risk involved if you can just park your space battleships anywhere you please. Its not so much a Grrr.. technobable needed. Its more of a I don't want to see the universe diminished. I feel that the character of star trek is that you arrive in your big ship. You have a problem to solve, but you're going to have to go down in small parties to solve it.

No matter how you explain it... why they would need to bring the ship into a planet for anything other than an emergency doesn't make sense. They have shuttles, transporters...

I'm sure it'll look cool and be fun. But to me... its a blow to star treks core. Just saying because it looks cool... isn't to me the mark of a great director.
Someone should tell Gene Roddenberry.



The only reason the Enterprise didn't land in TOS was the cost was too prohibitive. The transporters and shuttlecraft were cost saving measures.
Sidebar: I like the cheesy old TOS effects much better than the cheesy new TOS-R effects. Just sayin'.

Arpy wrote: View Post
What they meant to do in TOS doesn't matter as much as what they did do.

There's nothing wrong with the preference of capital ships not being atmosphere-capable, and it does add a dash of faux verisimilitude that Trek's so famous/loved for.

I used to like the idea that ships couldn't travel in atmosphere, but it does make more sense to me that soooo advanced ships would be able to. Of course, it makes more sense that such ships wouldn't be welded together hull plate by visible hull plate but what can you do?
I want to know why we weren't told decades ago that these ships are watertight. Airtight in the vacuum of space, even where there are no windows or doors, damn straight! But watertight? Dude. If they don't say it, it ain't so. Right? Right?
marksound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 9 2013, 12:23 PM   #221
Arpy
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

Uhhh, it's not a matter of watertight but structurally able to withstand the water pressure and gravity pull. And no ships don't feel that pressure/pull at warp because they're in a bubble at warp and these things don't come into play.

At impulse I guess the shields, or the deflector, or the structural integrity field, or artificial gravity, or some amazing new hull materials, are keep the ship together...

I don't remember - does the Abramsprise have bubble shields?
Arpy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 9 2013, 01:37 PM   #222
The Mirrorball Man
Vice Admiral
 
The Mirrorball Man's Avatar
 
Location: Switzerland
View The Mirrorball Man's Twitter Profile
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

Arpy wrote: View Post
I don't remember - does the Abramsprise have bubble shields?
No, it has sombrero shields.
__________________
Check out my deviantArt gallery!
The Mirrorball Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 9 2013, 02:10 PM   #223
marksound
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Planet Carcazed
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

Arpy wrote: View Post
Uhhh, it's not a matter of watertight but structurally able to withstand the water pressure and gravity pull. And no ships don't feel that pressure/pull at warp because they're in a bubble at warp and these things don't come into play.

At impulse I guess the shields, or the deflector, or the structural integrity field, or artificial gravity, or some amazing new hull materials, are keep the ship together...

I don't remember - does the Abramsprise have bubble shields?
You saw the winky, right?

Sheldon: Sarcasm?
Howard: Nah.
marksound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 9 2013, 02:42 PM   #224
Arpy
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

No! No winkie! Winkies excuse nothing!
Arpy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 9 2013, 02:47 PM   #225
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

This is from an old Star Trek strip in an old Joe 90 comic back in the 70's. Admittedly it was written by someone who had never actually seen the show (get a load of Captain "Kurt"!) but the Enterprise "landed" was a pretty cool visual.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:58 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.