RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,171
Posts: 5,344,904
Members: 24,601
Currently online: 539
Newest member: Capt_n_Admiral

TrekToday headlines

Klingon Beer Arrives In The US
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22

Star Trek: Prelude To Axanar
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22

Abrams Announces Star Wars: Force For Change Sweepstakes
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22

New Funko Trek Figure
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

Saldana As A Role Model
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

San Diego Comic-Con Trek Fan Guide
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

Cumberbatch As Turing
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

Retro Review: In the Pale Moonlight
By: Michelle on Jul 19

Trek Beach Towel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 18

Two New Starships Collection Releases
By: T'Bonz on Jul 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 August 26 2013, 06:38 PM   #1081
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
The ship was just there under water, for a cool visual effects shot, and that was it.
I can live with that because I was drooling during the whole sequence.
__________________
"I had no idea you were so... formidable. " - Anan 7 to James T. Kirk, A Taste of Armageddon
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2013, 06:38 PM   #1082
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

SeerSGB wrote: View Post
Kirk is reckless. He does stuff--more of less--cause it's cool or fun, he needs to grow up. Why put a ship in the ocean? Cause why not, it'll be fun.
So nuKirk is like the nuScriptwriters then.

The whole 10 minutes of "Kirk gets demoted for recklessness and then again promoted to Captain" thing could have been cut out of the film without making a difference. It's as pointless as the ship being under water in the opening sequence.
__________________
lol
l
/\
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2013, 06:44 PM   #1083
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

JarodRussell wrote: View Post

The whole 10 minutes of "Kirk gets demoted for recklessness and then again promoted to Captain" thing could have been cut out of the film without making a difference. It's as pointless as the ship being under water in the opening sequence.
You're right it could have been cut. But I really love the dialogue of the scene and the way Greenwood, Pine and Quinto played it.

There are times I simply go to the movies to enjoy the ride. It had been a really long time since I had went to a Star Trek movie and enjoyed the ride before Abrams/Orci/Kurtzman came along.
__________________
"I had no idea you were so... formidable. " - Anan 7 to James T. Kirk, A Taste of Armageddon
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2013, 07:09 PM   #1084
SeerSGB
Admiral
 
SeerSGB's Avatar
 
Location: Tennessee
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

BillJ wrote: View Post
JarodRussell wrote: View Post

The whole 10 minutes of "Kirk gets demoted for recklessness and then again promoted to Captain" thing could have been cut out of the film without making a difference. It's as pointless as the ship being under water in the opening sequence.
You're right it could have been cut. But I really love the dialogue of the scene and the way Greenwood, Pine and Quinto played it.

There are times I simply go to the movies to enjoy the ride. It had been a really long time since I had went to a Star Trek movie and enjoyed the ride before Abrams/Orci/Kurtzman came along.
Could it have been? I liked the scene cause it was a very father and son moment. I think losing that scene would have lessened the impact of Pike killed later, as well as the "grown up decision" of Kirk to take Khan into custody over gunning him down as ordered.
__________________
- SeerSGB -
Good men don't need rules, The Doctor (A Good Man Goes To War)
SeerSGB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2013, 07:11 PM   #1085
Franklin
Rear Admiral
 
Location: In the bleachers
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
SeerSGB wrote: View Post
Kirk is reckless. He does stuff--more of less--cause it's cool or fun, he needs to grow up. Why put a ship in the ocean? Cause why not, it'll be fun.
So nuKirk is like the nuScriptwriters then.

The whole 10 minutes of "Kirk gets demoted for recklessness and then again promoted to Captain" thing could have been cut out of the film without making a difference. It's as pointless as the ship being under water in the opening sequence.
I posted once that the opening sequence was probably meant to be indicative of the kinds of dangerous stunts and stupid things they were doing over the last year. (The things that made Kirk a pain in the ass to Pike.)

If anyone in the audience face-palmed during that opening scene, that may have been part of the writers' intent. The Kirk at the beginning of the movie is immortal and acts that way. He believes whatever he chooses to do, and however he chooses to do it, things will always be fine in the end. In fact, he probably thinks he's not only immortal, he's a genius. The movie was about him learning that neither of those traits are true.

Now, if 53 year-old Jim Kirk ever took the Enterprise underwater, it better be for a damned good reason.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. -- Mark Twain
Franklin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2013, 07:21 PM   #1086
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

SeerSGB wrote: View Post

Could it have been? I liked the scene cause it was a very father and son moment. I think losing that scene would have lessened the impact of Pike killed later, as well as the "grown up decision" of Kirk to take Khan into custody over gunning him down as ordered.
I love the scenes in question but I think the whole "Kirk gets demoted" subplot wasn't handled very well. He's a "Captain", then a "Cadet", then a "Commander/First Officer" then a "Captain" again in a span of about ten minutes. It was awkwardly structured and I think they could've done it better and given us the same father/son and death scenes.
__________________
"I had no idea you were so... formidable. " - Anan 7 to James T. Kirk, A Taste of Armageddon
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2013, 07:23 PM   #1087
SeerSGB
Admiral
 
SeerSGB's Avatar
 
Location: Tennessee
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

BillJ wrote: View Post
SeerSGB wrote: View Post

Could it have been? I liked the scene cause it was a very father and son moment. I think losing that scene would have lessened the impact of Pike killed later, as well as the "grown up decision" of Kirk to take Khan into custody over gunning him down as ordered.
I love the scenes in question but I think the whole "Kirk gets demoted" subplot wasn't handled very well. He's a "Captain", then a "Cadet", then a "Commander/First Officer" then a "Captain" again in a span of about ten minutes. It was awkwardly structured and I think they could've done it better and given us the same father/son and death scenes.
That is true, there's a better way it could have been handled. Slowed it down. But with the pacing as it is, the scene is needed.

Maybe have sent Pike after Khan, Kirk as XO, Pike dies restarting the core, Kirk gets the Enterprise back for the 5 year mission at the very end.
__________________
- SeerSGB -
Good men don't need rules, The Doctor (A Good Man Goes To War)
SeerSGB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2013, 07:44 PM   #1088
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

BillJ wrote: View Post
That is simply going to come down to how seriously someone takes materials that never made it to the screen. Plus, there's been a lot of Star Trek since "The Making of..." and we've seen starships that can operate in the atmosphere and even land. But then again, wasn't the invention of the transporter tied solely to the fact that they couldn't afford the effects budget that would be required to land the ship every week?
True and true... and I think I tend to take background materials somewhat more seriously than most until screen directly contradicts it. Admittedly, this is my problem, not the Abramsverse's.

BillJ wrote: View Post
When I think seriously about building ships on the ground and landing them within the context of Star Trek, I really don't see a problem (though it isn't my favorite thing as I too grew up with the Enterprise being a ship that solely traveled the cosmos). But in a society that can manipulate matter and gravity, it doesn't represent a technological stumbling block for me.
Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with this. The land/water thing seemed different for no apparent reason, and that in and of itself bothered me... but if you can build a 700 meter starship, then why can't you build it on the ground.
__________________
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." - Q
Praetor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2013, 07:52 PM   #1089
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

What I find funny is when people take examples like Voyager or the Holoship, which were specifically designed to operate in the atmosphere, and then make the jump to "therefore, the Enterprise must be able to do this as well".

No, it doesn't mean that by default. Just because Voyager had landing gears doesn't mean the Enterprise has. Just because the Enterprise-D could separate doesn't mean the Enterprise-E can. Just because the Holoship, which is basically formed like a brick, can be hidden a couple of meters under lake water doesn't mean the Enterprise can hide hundred meters (because that's where the engineering section would be) under (potentially) salt water.


Praetor wrote: View Post
but if you can build a 700 meter starship, then why can't you build it on the ground.
That's the "we went to the moon, why can't I have a flying car" logic.
__________________
lol
l
/\
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2013, 07:54 PM   #1090
Chemahkuu
Vice Admiral
 
Chemahkuu's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
Send a message via Yahoo to Chemahkuu
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Indicates that Starfleet ships can with little effort though.
__________________
"But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake."
Chemahkuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2013, 07:58 PM   #1091
SeerSGB
Admiral
 
SeerSGB's Avatar
 
Location: Tennessee
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
What I find funny is when people take examples like Voyager or the Holoship, which were specifically designed to operate in the atmosphere, and then make the jump to "therefore, the Enterprise must be able to do this as well".

No, it doesn't mean that by default. Just because Voyager had landing gears doesn't mean the Enterprise has. Just because the Enterprise-D could separate doesn't mean the Enterprise-E can. Just because the Holoship, which is basically formed like a brick, can be hidden a couple of meters under lake water doesn't mean the Enterprise can hide hundred meters (because that's where the engineering section would be) under (potentially) salt water.


Praetor wrote: View Post
but if you can build a 700 meter starship, then why can't you build it on the ground.
That's the "we went to the moon, why can't I have a flying car" logic.
Well this is a universe flying cars Along with gravity manipulation technology, forcefields, and the like. So tossing a few metric tons of metal into orbit should be child's play.

Well Scotty was bitching about salt-water damage. But otherwise, a starship is basically a submarine: a sealed environment. So real issue there, in terms of keeping the crew alive. And this goes back to different Enterprise, different specs. We don't know what is the norm in this timeline.
__________________
- SeerSGB -
Good men don't need rules, The Doctor (A Good Man Goes To War)
SeerSGB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2013, 08:48 PM   #1092
cbspock
Rear Admiral
 
cbspock's Avatar
 
Location: San Antonio, TX
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
What I find funny is when people take examples like Voyager or the Holoship, which were specifically designed to operate in the atmosphere, and then make the jump to "therefore, the Enterprise must be able to do this as well".

No, it doesn't mean that by default. Just because Voyager had landing gears doesn't mean the Enterprise has. Just because the Enterprise-D could separate doesn't mean the Enterprise-E can. Just because the Holoship, which is basically formed like a brick, can be hidden a couple of meters under lake water doesn't mean the Enterprise can hide hundred meters (because that's where the engineering section would be) under (potentially) salt water.


Praetor wrote: View Post
but if you can build a 700 meter starship, then why can't you build it on the ground.
That's the "we went to the moon, why can't I have a flying car" logic.


The Enterprise did operate in the atmosphere in the original series. It was low enough for an F104 to intercept it and try to shoot it down. The Enterprise D used meta phasic shields (WTF) to sit inside a star, and a phase cloak to go through an asteroid yet people flip out because Enterprise is sitting underwater. It looked cool though. So when nu Kirk gets to the planet with the Roman Empire and tells Flavius his ship is somewhere at sea, he isn't bs'ing


-Chris
__________________
"It's important to give it all you have while you have the chance."-Shania

Last edited by cbspock; August 26 2013 at 09:00 PM.
cbspock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2013, 08:53 PM   #1093
cbspock
Rear Admiral
 
cbspock's Avatar
 
Location: San Antonio, TX
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
I would have accepted the nuEnterprise under water if it was a last desperate attempt in the finale of the film, not something casual in the opening teaser. Where it would have been made clear that it is insane, absolutely irregular and nearly impossible.

The Vengeance chases the Enterprise and Kirk decides to hide the ship on a planet under water, where he thinks Khan/Marcus would never look for a starship, until the warp engines or whatever are repaired. When it's time, the Enterprise rises from the waters to make a surprise attack.
That would have been cooler than the throwaway of the ship underwater in the opening teaser just to scare the crap out of a bunch of aliens. It would have been a pretty cool homage to Space Battlecruiser Yamato. Although Trek has done that before intentionally and unintentionally. Two cases the deflector dish used as a weapon against the borg, and stealing the Enterprise in Search of Spock was very similiar to the Yamato crew stealing their ship to stop the comet empire. The sequences are very similar with ships trying to stop them, and escaping the dock.


-Chris
__________________
"It's important to give it all you have while you have the chance."-Shania
cbspock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 27 2013, 10:35 AM   #1094
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
Why the fuck does this have to become a discussion of EVERYTHING Trek has done wrong?
Because, as people have pointed out numerous times before, if you're going to criticize one episode or movie for doing thing X, while simultaneously calling another episode or movie or series consistent and ignoring that it also did X, we're going to call you on it.
__________________
And that's my opinion.

The Onmyouza Theatre: an unofficial international fanclub dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 27 2013, 10:41 AM   #1095
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Praetor wrote: View Post
The reason the ship being underwater bothers me is quite simply that I always think of the line from TMoST that refers to the ship not being designed to enter an atmosphere. The one time it did that I can recall, in "Tomorrow is Yesterday" it was a problem. It's a relatively minor annoyance for me, others not so much.
I think it's important to point out that it's a different Enterprise, built at a different date in a different timeline.

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
But it had no reason to be there at all. And no consequences for the ship either.
So ?
__________________
And that's my opinion.

The Onmyouza Theatre: an unofficial international fanclub dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
argument, size, starship

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 06:26 AM.

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