Someone who enjoyed Star Trek XI

[ST-One]

nightwind1 wrote:

---

That's what I meant by my post... it's probably Transparent Aluminum, a material we already know that exists in the Trek-verse, a transparent METAL.

Why do a lot of these people keep thinking it was GLASS?

Because of the sound effect when it cracks.

Besides, the transparent aluminium windows in Generations shattered like glass too...

[Crazy Eddie]

Hell, the transparent aluminum catwalk in "Heart of Glory" shattered EXACTLY like glass when Korris crashed through it.

[G2309]

If they're going to have windows elsewhere on the ship they may as well have one on thew bridge. It will always be a ships weak point.
They're explorers can you imagine the lunar module being windowless. We want to see things with our own eyes that's why we visit places rather than just watch documentary footage.

[Capt. L. Tocher]

I personally loved the movie. It did have its flaws, but nowhere near as many as some of the previous movies. And I liked Nemesis too. I guess I fit the bill of the new generation of SFX and fancy flashiness, but I enjoy the slower stuff aswell. Nemisis had a good story and some great action, as did this new movie, as did all the other movies. I have yet to watch anything Star Trek I didn't like.

And lots of people argue the special effects... but why? What's wrong with seeing your favourite ship to a barrel roll firing torpedoes and crap? I live for exciting views of the Enterprise.

That was actually one of my main complaints about Trek: the ships are so damn slow. Really, in space, there's nothing to weigh them down. If the pilot's skilled enough, it should be able to fly around like a jet fighter. Perhaps even more agile. Never made sense to me having them float by like sluggish boats stuck in mud.

Also also why so much new Enterprise hate? It's a beautiful ship, and just another version of the same thing. Of course everyone has a right to their own opinion, but it's definitely one of my top favourite ship designs. And that scene where it pops up from Saturn's rings... that scene was the most epic thing to hit movie screens... ever.

My 2... or 8... cents.

[JarodRussell]

Capt. L. Tocher wrote:

---

That was actually one of my main complaints about Trek: the ships are so damn slow. Really, in space, there's nothing to weigh them down. If the pilot's skilled enough, it should be able to fly around like a jet fighter. Perhaps even more agile. Never made sense to me having them float by like sluggish boats stuck in mud.

Mass. The larger a ship, the more mass it has, the more energy is needed to move and maneuver it.

[Captain Mike]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

Mass. The larger a ship, the more mass it has, the more energy is needed to move and maneuver it.

Agreed. The "Abramsprise" seems so much a conglomaration of all the onscreen Enterprise's that it is almost a "kit-bash" of them.

[ST-One]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

Mass. The larger a ship, the more mass it has, the more energy is needed to move and maneuver it.

Christopher Bennett has a nice explanation for Trek's fast-moving huge ships in his Ex Machina: even under impulse power the ships are enveloped in a warp field that reduces the ships' inertial mass to a fraction of what it actually is.