Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater?

[SalvorHardin]

So, wait...have we reached a point where we whine about fandom not whining enough?

[M'Sharak]

SalvorHardin wrote:

---

So, wait...have we reached a point where we whine about fandom not whining enough?

I sure hope not - sounds like the formula for a perpetual whine machine. And if we're that far gone, I'm engaging the forum auto-detonate.

[Locutus of Bored]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

Fluidic space doesn't count, the Delta Flyer is a shuttle, not a starship, and there were complaints about Xindi ships going underwater. I should know, I'm the one who made them.

It sounds like it's your endless complaining about things that are inconsequential to whether or not there's a good story and your arbitrary rules for what counts or not (that amazingly always support your argument) that are the problem then, not everyone else.

I'm curious, what is your basis for insinuating that it's the same people who complained about ships going underwater during Berman and Braga's tenure that are now giving JJ Abrams a pass on the same? I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but when I saw the ships underwater back then I thought it was a cool change of pace from the usual ships flying through space routine, and I feel the same way here. The technical issues never seemed bothersome to me, given all the other fantastical things the ships are capable of.

The Wormhole wrote:

---

I said Berman and Braga. Braga had nothing to do with Insurrection, thereby explaining why fandom didn't get in outrage.

You can't be serious. Are you putting on an act or something? Your excuses are ridiculous.

[sunburn800]

I don't care why she is under water i was just hoping she would stay there.

[Jackson_Roykirk]

sunburn800 wrote:

---

I don't care why she is under water i was just hoping she would stay there.

Well, as cool as being under water is, I kind of like the idea of some space travel, too.

[JoeZhang]

Being a fake fan, I only care it will lead to some really cool visual effects after I've paid my money and am watching it in IMAX.

[Ovation]

Locutus of Bored wrote:

---

I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but when I saw the ships underwater back then I thought it was a cool change of pace from the usual ships flying through space routine, and I feel the same way here. The technical issues never seemed bothersome to me, given all the other fantastical things the ships are capable of.

I hate to resort to an overused internet posting cliché but--QFT.

Honestly, as someone who is a fan of both "hard s-f" and Trek, I urge everyone to A) not confuse the two and B) look elsewhere than Trek for depictions of truly plausible extrapolations of science.

[Arpy]

I agree with what you qft, but if you let every little thing pass, well, it's "death by a thousand cuts." Eventually it's drained of whatever made it special in the first place.

[The Wormhole]

Locutus of Bored wrote:

---

It sounds like it's your endless complaining about things that are inconsequential to whether or not there's a good story and your arbitrary rules for what counts or not (that amazingly always support your argument) that are the problem then, not everyone else.

That's me alright

I'm curious, what is your basis for insinuating that it's the same people who complained about ships going underwater during Berman and Braga's tenure that are now giving JJ Abrams a pass on the same? I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but when I saw the ships underwater back then I thought it was a cool change of pace from the usual ships flying through space routine, and I feel the same way here. The technical issues never seemed bothersome to me, given all the other fantastical things the ships are capable of.

To be completely accurate, the original post I quoted was this:

ssosmcin wrote:

---

You know, if the Enterprise was shown underwater in the pre-Abrams universe, with just a "who cares it looks cool" response, the uproar would be deafening, probably even from the people who are now shrugging it off.

To which I felt obligated to correct and state specifically that if Berman and Braga had done this "the uproar would have been deafening," as a means of mocking Trek fandom's irrational hatred of Berman and Braga which still lives strong to some degree today. After all, Berman and Braga use the term "Klingon Warbird" and I see some people using that as evidence that they are unfit to write Trek. Abrams uses the exact same term and no one cares.

As for the actual issue of starships underwater, from the technical point of view I couldn't care, as long as there's a story reason for it, I'm fine. Mind you, in the case of the Xindi ships, how they came to discover it's submersible abilities was some pretty weak logic. The conversation basically went like this.

"Let's take this ship underwater."
"Can it go underwater?"
"Nobody told us it couldn't."

So provided STID provides a logical story reason for the Enterprise going underwater I'll accept it.

You can't be serious. Are you putting on an act or something? Your excuses are ridiculous.

My angry/irrational fanboy routine usually is an act, but this particular example has an element of truth to it. I was discussing Berman and Braga, and someone cites ann example to argue against me from something Braga had nothing to do with, which to me seemed similar to Trek Fandom's other nagging habit to claim both Berman and Braga were responsible for everything that went on in post Roddenberry, pre Abrams Trek, when in fact Braga had authority over very little of it. For the record, Braga was only responsible for Generations, First Contact, seasons 5 and 6 of Voyager, and the first three seasons of Enterprise. That's it.