"...all 72 torpedoes are still in their tubes."

If it's a reason to damn the current films, then how in the world did you become a fan to begin with? The reason it comes up so often is because it's a standard that Trek fans have never held Star Trek to in the past.

 

Yes--if the complaint is ONLY applied to Abrams' films.

Observation 1: Could have been better in keeping its technical details consistent, but that's a minor point considering such consistency has never been Trek's strong suit and the franchise has never suffered much for its inconsistencies in this matter overall.

Reply 1: Perfectly reasonable observation and expression of a desire for more consistency going forward.

Observation 2: OMG, the technical details are horribly inconsistent. Just one more example of lazy blah, blah, blah... How can Abrams and company be so cavalier in their treatment of Trek? Real Trek productions were never this insulting to the fans who value blah, blah, blah...

Reply 2: But, as we all know, inconsistency in technical matters has never been Trek's strong suit and it's never been that big a deal before, so this is a minor flaw in the grand scheme of things.

Observation 2: NO! It's laziness, carelessness, blah, blah, blah...and proves these people are incompetent and thus the movies are failures, blah, blah, blah...

Reply 2: Ah, so "technical inconsistencies" is just code for "I hated the Abrams films but need a more substantial excuse for my rants".

If one doesn't like the films, fine. If one is bothered by the technical inconsistencies in the films, fine. But if one happily lives with the inconsistencies of the "prime universe" stories but refuses to be as accommodating of the Abrams films, let's not be shocked that others will point out the hypocrisy of such a position.

 

So criticizing the 74 decks on the Enterprise-A in TFF, or the death star shaft at the lowest deck of the Enterprise-E in Nemesis, never happened? It has been, and will always be, lazy work.

 

And you know that neither of those reasons are why those two films are failures. They may give us a momentary chuckle, but the fact that the movies are dramatically uninteresting are why they are considered failures. Not because someone got a technical detail wrong.

 

I have to think that for the vast majority of the moviegoing public, these little things don't matter. Not a whit. Most of the complaints put forth by fans in these fora aren't noticed by "regular" folk. Only by going back and watching scenes over and over and over are the tiniest technical errors revealed. I've never done that, nor do I care to start.

What am I interested in? Compelling characters. Chemistry. An engaging story. Fun, and lots of it. I like to walk out of the theater feeling like it was worth the money I spent. I've paid good money to see a bunch of flicks that I wish I hadn't. These aren't them.

With the exception of a few minor details that I can ignore, I got all of what I like in a Star Trek movie from these two.

Arguing about terminology and how many "tubes" are on a ship don't mean a damn to me. This is all imaginary tech, so who cares if they made up some stuff to make the dialog flow? It's all made up anyway. It's not like we haven't heard thousands of lines of technobabble before.

I take these things for what they are. Entertainment. Not "historical documents." Not a layout of future science. Not a vision of a possible utopian Earth. Just entertainment.

If some don't like the way these things are being done, I'd recommend moving to California and getting a job on the next production. Make your arguments where they can make the most impact, and if you don't get fired first, maybe you can be an influence to steer the next movie to more of what you want.

But until then, if you don't like the movies, just say so. Repeated rehashing of the same complaints seems to me like a waste of time, because you can't change what has already past.

Change the future, because it isn't written yet.

 

You seem to think that if Star Trek all have mistakes, then JJ's films cannot be singled out for special criticism. This would be mistaken. No one, for example, has perfect parents, but this does not mean that we cannot criticize particular parents for being bad in cases where their parenting is substantially poor compared to typical parents.

The question, therefore, is NOT "Do most films have flaws?" or "Do other Star Trek have flaws?", but rather "Is this film significantly flawed compared to other typical films and/or other Star Trek films?"

There are two substantive critical questions we can ask of JJ's Trek. 1. Do these films compare favorably to other Hollywood movies? 2. Do these films compare favorably to other Star Trek films?

Please note, if you think that nuTrek compares favorably to other Hollywood films and/or other Trek films, then you should also agree that we can apply this standard to nuTrek without necessarily biasing the experiment against the new movies.

 

Which works very much unlike a traditional "load it once and fire it" torpedo tube.

Why? The small launchers (at least, what looked like launchers) in STXI loaded six to a tube. We know nothing whatsoever about the actual mechanism of EITHER launch system in the movie, but if the larger version is anything like the smaller one, we could be looking at a type of revolver magazine that can launch four torpedoes from a single aperture, rotating them into place one at a time (much like the Mk-13 and Mk-26 launch systems that were replaced by VLS).

Of course we would, if her Captain says she is mainly an exploration ship. It's kinda like how Ellie Driver never kills anyone other than Bud (and poisons Pai Mei in a flashback) but we still assume she's a professional assassin, since she repeatedly refers to herself as such and belongs to something called "the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad."

And if anyone had ever claimed Starfleet were PACIFISTS, that would be a relevant point.

Invoking jingoism to show evidence of joingoism is a circular argument.

I agree.

Like Die Hard 1 and 2?

Die Hard 5...

Die Hard 3 and 4...

Tell that to John McClain.

I don't know that Starfleet actually has a military operational agenda and purpose.

In deed, sure, but in that case the police department is not LEGALLY a military organization even if they sometimes act like it.

And if you think about it, the subtext of STID raises the same kind of alarm for Starfleet: the increasing militarization of the exploration service is pushed as being absolutely necessary to combat the Klingon threat, but at the same time it runs contrary to everything Starfleet is supposed to be. That's the point of Kirk's closing monolog at the end: that one should not sacrifice one's guiding principles just because he's scared of his enemies.

That's a good analogy, but look what you just did there.

The SWAT team is NOT a military organization. Not legally, not technically, not even logistically. So when Sgt. Scott finds out his helicopter is being fitted with ultra-top secret antitank missiles intended for use in the assassination of the cop killer who just fled to Cuba, what's his complaint?

"That's what scares me, Captain. This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because last time I checked, I thought we were policemen!"

For the record, I am 100% certain SWAT teams and police departments are not military organizations, as much as they do act like them. I am somewhat less sure about Starfleet, but Scotty and Khan's lines are pretty definitive IMO.

Funny you mention that: technically, the the U.N. Peacekeepers are not a military organization either, but an organization that includes both civilian and military contributions from member states, specialized in the exact operation they are required to perform.

That, actually, is the whole reason why personnel assigned to the peacekeeping mission are required to wear this big obvious blue helmets. It's not to indicate membership in a military organization, it's to indicate membership in the peacekeepers whether or not they have been sent to that mission from a national military, from a police department, from the Red Cross or from the University of Pennsylvania's pediatrics department.

He's looking at the same graphic we're looking at. We don't even have to wonder what he sees, we can see it too.

He doesn't see the torpedoes, the computer does. Nor has he bothered to count them, the computer does that for him too; in fact, the computer hasn't even finished counting them when he says this. And even if we assume those blurry white lines on the graphic are supposed to be the ship's torpedo tubes (which I highly doubt) there are definitely not seventy two of them, as the graphic shows between 12 and 18 lines on each side of the ship. Even more importantly, the ANIMATION of the graphic appears to highlight the locations of those torpedoes along the length of those lines; if the rectangular indicators and the numbers that appear above them are supposed to indicate the locations of the torpedoes, then there are three torpedoes loaded into each of those launch tubes, lined up one after another (again, assuming those lines actually indicate the launch tubes themselves and not, say, magazine compartments of the weapons bay).

So show me where on the same graphic the computer indicates the torpedoes are all loaded into individual launch tubes with individual launch covers, and I'll let this one go. Otherwise, it stands as plausible and even likely that Khan's sensors located the torpedoes in the weapons bay and Khan simply assumed -- based on his superior intellect -- that the torpedoes had not been moved from their tubes. It would not be the first time he was wrong about something, and it probably will not be the last.

NOTHING suggests he knows how these ships are laid out. He explicitly states that the reason he knows the layout of the Vengeance is because he helped to design it. There is ZERO evidence he knows anything whatsoever about the layout of the Enterprise.

The threat to fire the torpedoes if Khan didn't surrender to Kirk's yet-to-arrive team?

Why would Sulu do that? Kirk didn't order him to fire the torpedoes.

An action which was almost certainly meant to intimidate Khan in the event he had some kind of sensor capability.

 

No. I think it is unfair to forgive non-Abrams Trek films for errors that are equivalent in degree and kind to those found in the Abrams films while simultaneously refusing to grant the same leeway to the Abrams films. If one can identify errors that are different in kind and degree, then certainly those are up for fair criticism. Also, if one is equally critical of errors found in non-Abrams Trek films, then criticizing the ones in the Abrams films is fair game. But forgiving the "prime" films (and TV programmes) and not forgiving the Abrams Trek films for equivalent errors in degree and kind--not fine.

The answer to "Is this film..." is no and no. If we compare them to typical genre films or even to the subset of Trek films, we might find individual examples of each that are less flawed--but neither category as a whole can make that claim.

1. Yes. 2. Yes.

Are they perfect films? Far from it (I would argue that few, if any, films deserve the label "perfect"). Does one have to like them? Certainly not. Are they above criticism? No. But each of them is more critically and publicly acclaimed than the average Hollywood film and even the average Trek film (if we go by aggregate critical reviews and audience responses--the only measures, imprecise though they may be, we have available). As such, I stand by my "Yes" responses.

There are films I personally enjoy a great deal that are neither critically nor publicly acclaimed (Alien 3 is one--I like it a lot more than Aliens, a film with a much stronger critical and public approval rating). I do not presume the majority is somehow too stupid to see why Alien 3 is better than Aliens. I accept that I have a minority position on the matter and I even accept that my preference is not based on some sort of objective measure. I simply prefer it. What I would not do is argue that Aliens is a failure as a sci-fi film or isn't a "true Alien film" simply because I don't like it as much as the other three films in the series (I am not counting the Predator crossover films, primarily because I have not seen them). On the other hand, I've seen dozens of attempts to argue that Abrams' Trek films are "not real Trek" or "much more poorly plotted movies than most other movies" or "are technically inconsistent because of the number of torpedo tubes" or any number of other variant complaints--the vast majority of which would be applicable to other films in general or other Trek films/episodes or both. It's fine to point out these various elements are bothersome (if they happen to be). It's hypocritical, or disingenuous, to suggest the Abrams films are somehow unique for having such issues.

 

Not really. One round in the firing tube at a time and reload after firing. With an Olde Tyme submarine the difference is that a crewman is part of the reloading mechanism. With a firearm reloading is entirely mechanical.

What matters, crucially, is that in the historical and cultural background of the audience there is not a mechanism of the variety you allege, so why would they infer it?

Where do we see this? Specifically?

Supposing this evidence is produced, we must ask if it is a magazine which is being loaded or simply if they are jamming all the torpedoes into a tube at once.

Which is precisely why wild speculation on how they might work, speculation which runs to how audiences have seen roughly similar weapons work does not work in your favor.

You're back pedaling? You want to redefine the "tube" as the magazine?

A firing mechanism with a revolving cylinder or stacked magazine still only feed into ONE tube. For there to be 72 torpedoes "locked and loaded" into 72 tubes, means the Enterprise has at least 72 tubes.

You speak of a minor character. It's not her movie. We don't see her doing other things (like practicing law or medicine) for 3 and a half hours and only killing people for only five minutes.

It is relevant in this sense. Actions matter. What you call yourself is irrelevant if your behaviors tell otherwise.

I do not offer it as simply "slam dunk" positive proof. Rather, I noted how "Peacekeepers" are so often warriors. To claim a peacekeeping mission is very often a euphemism.

More importantly, peacekeeping operations (those that are not simply masks for military aggression) are historically carried out by the warships, tanks, planes, and soldiers of the militaries of various nations. Peacekeeping armadas are historically comprised of ships of war.

So why would it matter whether they were consulted or not?

John McClain isn't a cop. He's an action figure. Increasingly so with each pathetic sequel.

The most conspicuous purpose of a military is to fight wars. Does Starfleet fight wars with her ships? We've seen Starfleet fight in wars throughout Trek. Marcus almost starts a war in the film we were watching. In TOS war breaks out with the Klingons (Errand of Mercy) and we are aware of previous wars such as with Romulans (Balance of Terror).

If Starfleet is already a de facto millitary, should Mr. Scott be surprised when it continues to do so, even if it is not a de jure military?

The armaments, the considerable armaments, of the U.S.S. Enterprise should signal to Scotty what she is built for, at least in significant part. He is on a ship of war (in whole or in part) regardless of whether the UFP refers to Starfleet as an Armada ducks or daffodils.

Yeah, I get it and I think it is a good message.

My point is simply that Mr. Scott should not be upset at the mere presence of torpedoes on a ship armed to the teeth. As I conceded, however, you have argued well in mitigating the upshot of this point. The torpedoes are experimental and Scott, despite the secrets, can guess that they're off on a dubious mission.

Metaphorically speaking, Sgt. Scott should realize that his Apache helicopter, armed to the teeth with Hellfire missiles, hydra rockets, and 30mm cannon is a military helicopter. She isn't a mere Jetranger or HH-65 Dolphin.

Sure, he might legitimately complain about experimental weapons and the mission he suspects is lurking behind their delivery, but he would have to be a fool not to realize that he was already part of a force with a de facto military purpose.

Let's keep the analogy straight. The UFP is like the UN. Starfleet is like the U.S. military deployed by the UN.

And when the man with the blue helmet calls in an artillery strike on your location, you can console yourself that they're just keeping the peace.

And he designed the ship. Whatever information there is to extract, he knows exactly where to look. And what other graphics does he have at his disposal?

I don't have to. I have the spoken line of dialogue. He can "see" that 72 torpedoes are in their tubes.

You must speculate that Khan is wrong, that he doesn't know jargon, that is a 20th century man, your are forced to argue that magazines are really "tubes" because you have to stand against the most obvious evidence supplied by the text itself.

If Khan attempts to run before they arrive, Sulu might fire.

Also, Kirk has given orders at risk to his own life before.

 

Yes but it's Chekov who took the ship out of warp. He says so in the movie. Just pointing that out.

 

I think Chekov was as surprised as anyone that the ship dropped out of warp. Chekov does say he takes full responsibility for the breakdown, which he should do at that point, since no one in engineering knows what happened. That said, Kirk is already suspicious of sabotage after talking with Khan, and immediately tells Chekov he thinks it's unlikely it's his fault the ship left warp and is broken down.

 

I'd have to go back and look, but I'm pretty sure Chekov dropped the Enterprise out of warp.

 

Why would he do that? The ship dropped out of warp because of the malfunction caused by sabotage.

 

[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmUeGxTMGpw[/YT]

 

Thank you both for confirming my memory!

 

Of course there is. It's in the previous film: the torpedoes fire one after another.

Are you again assuming the audience of Star Trek movie are more familiar with military history (and submarines, for that matter) than they are with Star Trek?

Immediately before and during the battle of Vulcan.

Hard to say since we never see the opening on the exterior of the ship. But given that the torpedo tubes don't correspond to any recognizable exterior feature, and given that each individual torpedo is only about the size of a howitzer shell, I would be VERY surprised if all six torpedoes had their own tube.

And yet, you're still assuming those audiences will be more familiar with Horatio Hornblower and WWII submarine movies than they will be with Star Trek. I don't think that assumption is justified.

No. I've been saying for 10 posts now the ship probably doesn't have all of 72 launch tubes. If it does not, then there has to be a way for those torpedoes to be "loaded" multiple weapons to a tube.

Makes no difference. You can safely believe what you are told about a character (or story element) until you see or are told something that contradicts this.

Starfleet's behaviors do not tell otherwise.

I don't know. You're the one who mentioned them.

Yes he is.

That is not the most conspicuous purpose of Starfleet.

Yes he should, in exactly the same way that police officers should be angry and offended about their SWAT teams being sent to assassinate terrorists abroad.

Scott's not flying an Apache. CHIEF MARCUS is flying an Apache. Scott's flying a specially modifed SH-60 that is specifically designed for policework and aerial surveillance and even has a built-in forensics lab installed in the back.

And he's objecting to the experimental and highly classified antitank missiles that have been attached to his purpose-built police helicopter, missiles that are clearly being attached with the intention of firing them at terrorists in foreign countries.

Possibly, although Starfleet's legal status vis a vis United Earth is VERY ambiguous.

He designed the VENGEANCE, not the Enterprise.

No he can't. I'm looking right at what he's seeing, and he is clearly not speaking literally. He is ASSUMING the torpedoes are still in their launch tubes because that is, more or less, the vicinity of the ship where his sensors find them.

No, Sulu might not, because Kirk didn't tell Sulu to fire the torpedoes if Khan tried to run.

This was not one of those times.

 

Are you again beating your spouse?

Right, the six-shooter thingees.

Are they loading up the phase-cannons? The hand phasers in the 09 film have a very mechanical and metallic sound when they fire (and the front of the gun swivels like it is reloading).

We don't really know what those things are.

Let's suppose, for the moment, that they are little torpedoes (you refer to them as the "small launchers") that are being loaded like bullets into a revolver's cylinder.

If so, then it would seem that in addition to having tubes for 72 torpedoes which are allegedly loaded in this fashion (just imagine how much larger that "six-gun" cylinder must be for the Khan torpedoes!), she also has additional "small launchers" as well! You have discovered that the Enterprise has even more weapons than I supposed! She's got all those phase canons, ginormous six-shooter cylinders, and small torpedo launchers too!

We don't even know that those are torpedoes in the '09 film!

But let's say you're right. The "small launcher" is for torpedoes, right? They load 'em up like a six-shooter and they even fires them like a six-gun. How did you put it, "rotating them into place one at a time"? And this is because, as you say, you "would be VERY surprised if all six torpedoes had their own tube."

If so, only one torpedo can be aligned with the tube at a time! Thus when Khan says "I see all 72 torpedoes are still in their tubes," he cannot be referring to torpedoes being in giant rotating six-gun cylinders (because only one torpedo can be in a tube at a time to fire - and it is very doubtful that each torpedo gets its own tube, right?). Thus the Enterprise must still have 72 torpedo tubes or you must maintain that Khan is wrong.

 

Is that supposed to be unique to this version of Trek ?

So you're in fact admitting that Trek has always had a "I don't care" way of thinking when it comes to ship/technical details. So why mention it at all ?

 

Wow. That's a really fucking poor thing to say.