RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,666
Posts: 5,429,224
Members: 24,817
Currently online: 414
Newest member: 118_Larson


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 August 17 2013, 04:23 AM   #136
Nerys Myk
Fleet Admiral
 
Nerys Myk's Avatar
 
Location: House of Kang, now with ridges
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

Noname Given wrote: View Post
trevanian wrote: View Post
Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
No the answer will be they have mastered artificial gravity and tractor beams. ( as shown on the show and in the films). So they build on the ground where the construction crew is safer and less encumbered. Then use anti grav and tractor beams to lift it into space.

Still easier to swallow than the nexus, Genesis and dilithium.
Once more, with the last erg of feeling. It is safer to build in space than on Earth, unless you've got everybody with their own personal antigrav rig. It is probably faster too, because you're working in microgravity and only have to worry about inertia mass and not the one gee going DOWN. Plus zero-gee fab offers all sorts of possibilities.
Really, with all the hard radiation, the fact that a suit develops a leak, the fact that you have to be VERY careful as to the movements you make - and tire easily if you're not careful (that hasn't and won't change, man is man); it's easier/safer to build in space as opposed to the ground just using anti and artificial grav tech that they seem to have perfected?
What he said.
__________________
The boring one, the one with Khan, the one where Spock returns, the one with whales, the dumb one, the last one, the one with Kirk, the one with the Borg, the stupid one, the bad one, the new one, the other one with Khan.
Nerys Myk is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2013, 04:29 AM   #137
FarStrider
Commander
 
FarStrider's Avatar
 
Send a message via Yahoo to FarStrider
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

trevanian wrote: View Post
Once more, with the last erg of feeling. It is safer to build in space than on Earth, unless you've got everybody with their own personal antigrav rig. It is probably faster too, because you're working in microgravity and only have to worry about inertia mass and not the one gee going DOWN. Plus zero-gee fab offers all sorts of possibilities.
Space is not "safer" to work in. . . there is cosmic weather, radiation, micro-meteors, that whole "no oxygen" thing, wearing uncomfortable, and mobility limiting, suits in order to work, etc.. . . plus, if the workers slightly misaligned say a bulkhead in microgravity, only to discover it when the artificial gravity is turned on, it would wipe out months of work in an instant: that won't happen when the ship is built in the gravity that it is going to work under; plus humans are fairly comfortable with gravity, considering that we evolved with it and all, it makes sense that we would actually work better in our native environment. . .as BillJ has said, the Federation has tractor beams and antigravity. . . there would be no problem getting a ship built on Earth into space. . .


~FS

EDIT: I see someone said it more eloquently than I did. . .
__________________
"No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will seriously cramp his style. . . "
FarStrider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2013, 04:40 AM   #138
Opus
Commodore
 
Opus's Avatar
 
Location: Bloom County
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

GameOn wrote: View Post
Sure they bend and break science all the time in sci-fi to serve the plot but bad writing that randomly breaking the internal logic of the story or fictional universe ruins it.
Vulcanian.
__________________
Now that I've seen it, and have also had time to mellow, to really think about it, I now find it absolutely, unbearably repulsive in every way except for some of the acting. - about The Wrath of Khan. Interstat, Issue 62: 1982
Opus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2013, 05:19 AM   #139
CorporalClegg
Admiral
 
CorporalClegg's Avatar
 
Location: Land of Enchantment
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

trevanian wrote: View Post
If you don't think some of the rich old 'harry' fat guys get plenty of hot action, then you don't know what makes the world go round. Hint: it's not love, and in the US it is mostly green.
Way to ignore the point completely. Bill offered sun surfing time travel as an example of Star Trek's incredulity. Your response was to suggest that, since it's been associated with the form for a while, that it automatically passes the sniff test.

I used an absurd analogy to point out how ridiculous that is. I could have just as easily used laptop supercomputers in crime procedurals, or the way people's lifestyle in most film and television exists beyond their means. Or, if I really wanted to skew the conversation, I could've brought up prophetic sons of gods born to virgin or unwed mothers.

Just because something is presented consistently in such a way over time doesn't it make it truthful, accurate, or believable.

But thanks for the contemptuous, albeit cynical, non sequitur.

If you don't find Van Vogt's stories plausible, that's your concern. I can't get into Tolkien, but I know lots of people love his stuff, and I ASSUME he knows something about what works in fantasy -- much as Van Vogt knew something about what worked in science fiction.
And Ted Kaczynski knew what worked in dementedly Quixotic manifestos. What's your point? What works and what's believable are two completely separate things.

Once more, with the last erg of feeling. It is safer to build in space than on Earth, unless you've got everybody with their own personal antigrav rig. It is probably faster too, because you're working in microgravity and only have to worry about inertia mass and not the one gee going DOWN. Plus zero-gee fab offers all sorts of possibilities.
Your "safer" argument has already been proven inaccurate.

"Faster" is irrelevant. It does not mean "better," just cheaper. And monetary considerations don't apply. There was also no evidence that deadlines to meet political or civil considerations applied since it was implied the Enterprise was a special case. And there was no evidence that all Starfleet ships were built planet side.

Since it was a special case, I might point out that all of your arguments apply to assembly lines and auto manufacturing. Yet there are legitimate reasons people choose to build cars by hand.

Besides, your basing most of your arguments on theory since there's only one large man-made structure in space. And it was only assembled in space. And a space station is quite a different animal than a space ship. You have no idea what the intricacies and nuances of building a starship are. For all anyone knows, there are plenty of practical reasons for building one on Earth.

We're all just guessing, and, despite the smug condescension, your guesses aren't any better than others'.
__________________
Konnichi wa!
CorporalClegg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2013, 06:56 AM   #140
Devon
Fleet Captain
 
Devon's Avatar
 
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

Still reading reaction to this story from across the interwebs, it seems virtually NO ONE believes this to even be accurate or, at least, accurately representative of the fan base. Kind of a universal "WTF?" The only people who believe this are Devin Faraci and the sheep at IGN/The Guardian.

http://www.edrants.com/why-devin-far...ce-journalism/
__________________
Follow my Star Trek Model builds, music, art and more at Devon's Corner.
Devon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2013, 07:33 AM   #141
Cyrus
Rear Admiral
 
Cyrus's Avatar
 
Location: Los Angeles
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

Greg Cox wrote: View Post
Here's the thing. "Trekkies United Against the New Star Trek!" makes a much better headline than "Wide Range of Opinions Exist Regarding Latest Trek Film," so naturally the media is jumping all over it. They're just trying to gin up controversy and make it sound like there's some huge backlash or uprising . . . because that makes a sexier story.

There are currently 374 Trekkies online on this board right now. That's over three times more than voted in that silly poll. So why is anyone paying attention to it?
Yes it was obvious from the start that the author of the original article was looking for an attention grabbing headline, and managed to round up the right people at the convention. "Trekkies think new movie is the worst Trek movie" was the best choice for that by far. The next best would have been "Trekkie think it's the best movie", though that would have been a distant second. "Trekkies think STiD is the 3rd best movie or 8th best movie" wouldn't have generated any attention.

Isn't this the same guy who included the "Abrams may quit the new Star Wars movie" tidbit in the middle of an article? He knew full well that would generate a lot of attention.
Cyrus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2013, 12:06 PM   #142
Smellmet
Commander
 
Smellmet's Avatar
 
Location: Goole
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

FarStrider wrote: View Post
the Federation has tractor beams and antigravity. . . there would be no problem getting a ship built on Earth into space. . .
I was under the impression that they would simply fire up the thrusters and simply take off, after all in STID alone we see the Enterprise in flight within a planets atmosphere and do submarine duties...

Last edited by M'Sharak; August 17 2013 at 06:38 PM. Reason: to repair broken quote tag and provide proper attribution
Smellmet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2013, 02:49 PM   #143
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

trevanian wrote: View Post


You don't WASTE energy. That is why you wouldn't be running a goddamn holodeck while 70,000 light years from home. Just cuz you HAVE a certain tech doesn't mean you always use it, or that it is wise to use it all the time (look at modern movies, they use CG like it is going out of style, but we got better results 15 years ago when there was a mix of techniques.)
Seems like you're bringing issues that you have had with other installments of the franchise into the argument. Star Trek: Voyager definitely isn't my favorite installment of the franchise but, once again, I don't think you're thinking it through from the angle of the universe the franchise created.

The thing about being 70,000 light-years from home is that you have to think about crew morale. No matter how nice the ship, the majority of those 150+ crew that never go on Away Team missions are going to go stir-crazy looking at the same gray corridors for seventy-years.

You don't expend all this energy to build the deadliest thing imagineable on the ground of your homeworld either.
Who said they use anti-matter planetside? You can easily do that as a final step before testing. Bringing it aboard after you've moved the ship to orbit and have a self-sufficient habitat to work in.

Now I'm guilty of everything I told the other guy was fruitless to get mixed up in. We are so talking past one another that I might as well be speaking Eurish and you Esperanto. There's no debate as you call it when there aren't parameters common to both parties, and in this instance, I don't see any.
I don't think we're talking past each other at all. You seem to hold it against this iteration of the franchise that they didn't use real-world theories on how best to build a large interstellar spacecraft. I look at it as a universe that has its own rules and figure that a society that can manipulate gravity and matter may be fine building a starship on the ground. It's a universe that has its own rules about a great many things that likely would be problematic, if not totally impossible in our world.

Does it go against Roddenberry's intent that the Enterprise be built in orbit? Sure. But I'm okay with a different interpretation. It's entertainment after all. YMMV.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2013, 03:13 PM   #144
Nerys Myk
Fleet Admiral
 
Nerys Myk's Avatar
 
Location: House of Kang, now with ridges
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

Smellmet wrote: View Post
FarStrider wrote: View Post
the Federation has tractor beams and antigravity. . . there would be no problem getting a ship built on Earth into space. . .
I was under the impression that they would simply fire up the thrusters and simply take off, after all in STID alone we see the Enterprise in flight within a planets atmosphere and do submarine duties...
They could do it that way. But I think using anti grav and tractors is better and less disruptive.
__________________
The boring one, the one with Khan, the one where Spock returns, the one with whales, the dumb one, the last one, the one with Kirk, the one with the Borg, the stupid one, the bad one, the new one, the other one with Khan.

Last edited by M'Sharak; August 17 2013 at 06:40 PM. Reason: quote tag repair
Nerys Myk is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2013, 05:18 PM   #145
thumbtack
Commodore
 
Location: Ankh-Morpork
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

Devon wrote: View Post
Still reading reaction to this story from across the interwebs, it seems virtually NO ONE believes this to even be accurate or, at least, accurately representative of the fan base. Kind of a universal "WTF?" The only people who believe this are Devin Faraci and the sheep at IGN/The Guardian.

http://www.edrants.com/why-devin-far...ce-journalism/

The comments are hilarious, though...


"I demand to know the weight and marital status of the males who voted in that poll!"


I guess the British population detests us just as much as the American population does.


.
__________________
"What went wrong!? All my sockpuppets loved this movie!" - Kevin Smith
thumbtack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2013, 10:38 PM   #146
Shaka Zulu
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Bulawayo Military Krral
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

FarStrider wrote: View Post
My question is: Who the heck goes to CreationCons anymore. . .those are sooooooo 1990s. . . and they really weren't that great, even then. . . ~FS
The same kind of people that go to SDCC and Fan Expo-both of those conventions are just like Creation anyway, with little of what the old standard fan-run cons used to have (and that's why I prefer fan run ones like Anime North and Reversed Polarity that are held where I live in Toronto-they are real cons, or as close to my definition of 'real'.)
Shaka Zulu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 20 2013, 01:31 PM   #147
Agenda
Fleet Captain
 
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

13. Into Darkness
Don't know if I'd rate it last, but I'm glad I'm not the only one who's not a fan. Thought I was going crazy there for a minute. Look, people can dismiss this as a general hatred of nuTrek all they like, but the fact that the first Abrams movie did much better in the rankings should tell you something.
Agenda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 20 2013, 02:10 PM   #148
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

Agenda wrote: View Post
13. Into Darkness
Don't know if I'd rate it last, but I'm glad I'm not the only one who's not a fan. Thought I was going crazy there for a minute. Look, people can dismiss this as a general hatred of nuTrek all they like, but the fact that the first Abrams movie did much better in the rankings should tell you something.
I actually think Star Trek Into Darkness is a better movie than Star Trek 2009 and rank it third overall.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 20 2013, 06:18 PM   #149
RyanKCR
Vice Admiral
 
RyanKCR's Avatar
 
Location: RyanKCR is living here in Allentown
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

If I ranked the films:

TMP
TWOK
TSFS
ID
Nem
TUC
FC
TVH
Gen
09
TFF
Ins
__________________
"I'm a man, but I can change, if I have to.....I guess."
"If women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy."
"Not all treasure is sliver and gold, mate."
RyanKCR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 20 2013, 06:19 PM   #150
Noname Given
Vice Admiral
 
Location: None Given
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

Agenda wrote: View Post
13. Into Darkness
Don't know if I'd rate it last, but I'm glad I'm not the only one who's not a fan. Thought I was going crazy there for a minute. Look, people can dismiss this as a general hatred of nuTrek all they like, but the fact that the first Abrams movie did much better in the rankings should tell you something.
What should it tell you? That Star trek fans who grew up watching the TNG era don't really like the different aesthetics of TOS, and think any new Star Trek should have the TNG 'We're always right/Rarely fight' aspect?

STiD was truer to the original 'Star Trek' (You remember that version of Star Trek - without which TNG, DS9, et al would have existed); then even the majority of TOS films. It's 'more' Trek (IMO) then anything done in the TNG era.
Noname Given 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 06:37 AM.

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