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

[The Mirrorball Man]

mos6507 wrote:

---

Which is the same argument that SW Prequel apologists used. Let's tear down the originals in order to make the new ones look better in comparison.

I'm not tearing down anything. I love Star Trek. But it's not as highbrown as some people make it out to be.

[BillJ]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

I'd be more interested in the explanation for why the Enterprise even needs to go underwater.

This is what I want. I don't care about the technobabble, I just want there to be an actual mission reason for it.

[Ovation]

I saw the nine-minute preview the other night and it took very little effort to infer why it was underwater, without an explicit explanation. I actually prefer it when films don't stop and have a character engage in lengthy exposition to "fill in the blanks"--I can do that just fine, thanks.

Also, I think worrying about whether it can survive a few dozen meters below the surface of a large body of water, in light of all the other rather fantastical things the Enterprise (in each of its iterations) has already done, is rather absurd on the face of it. The ship is a prop in service to the story--it can do whatever the story calls upon it to do. As it always has been.

[BillJ]

Ovation wrote:

---

I saw the nine-minute preview the other night and it took very little effort to infer why it was underwater, without an explicit explanation.

Do tell...

[Ovation]

But then I would be engaging in the kind of exposition I usually complain about when it comes from characters.

Kirk and McCoy are running away from the natives wearing some sort of costume that hides their appearance completely (until late into the running away), so they don't want to be seen. Kirk is carrying something (a scroll of some sort) that the natives desperately want back (hence the chase) and that is deliberate as Kirk announces via communicator to both the Enterprise and the shuttlecraft that the natives are out of the immediate "kill zone"). The shuttlecraft experiences problems coping with the volcanic emissions and Sulu and Uhura are forced to abandon the craft while Kirk and McCoy are forced to jump into the water to escape being seen clearly by the natives. Aboard the Enterprise, we learn via dialogue that Spock cannot be beamed out directly from the volcano to their position because of some sort of magnetic field interference (what? a planet with an environmental component that interferes with the transporter? How could Abrams violate canon like that? ).

Inference: The field that interferes with the transporter could also wreak havoc with sensors (quite likely as sensors and transporter seem to work in conjunction), so the ship must be much closer than usual to the planet. Hiding underwater is easiest way to hide from the natives.

Simple, really.

[BillJ]

Ovation wrote:

---

But then I would be engaging in the kind of exposition I usually complain about when it comes from characters.

Kirk and McCoy are running away from the natives wearing some sort of costume that hides their appearance completely (until late into the running away), so they don't want to be seen. Kirk is carrying something (a scroll of some sort) that the natives desperately want back (hence the chase) and that is deliberate as Kirk announces via communicator to both the Enterprise and the shuttlecraft that the natives are out of the immediate "kill zone"). The shuttlecraft experiences problems coping with the volcanic emissions and Sulu and Uhura are forced to abandon the craft while Kirk and McCoy are forced to jump into the water to escape being seen clearly by the natives. Aboard the Enterprise, we learn via dialogue that Spock cannot be beamed out directly from the volcano to their position because of some sort of magnetic field interference (what? a planet with an environmental component that interferes with the transporter? How could Abrams violate canon like that? ).

Inference: The field that interferes with the transporter could also wreak havoc with sensors (quite likely as sensors and transporter seem to work in conjunction), so the ship must be much closer than usual to the planet. Hiding underwater is easiest way to hide from the natives.

Simple, really.

But in that same nine-minute preview, don't they say they could beam him up if they had a better line of sight?

[Ovation]

BillJ wrote:

---

But in that same nine-minute preview, don't they say they could beam him up if they had a better line of sight?

If they hover over the volcano at a short distance--still within the atmosphere, still potentially in view of the natives (hence the concern with the prime directive. Hiding in the water and using the shuttle as a first option (in the water to monitor the situation at close range with sensors to offset planet's natural interference with sensors, using shuttle to get Spock to volcano's interior, with a cable attached [so shuttles appear not to have transporters at this point--as was the case with TOS shuttles], and doing so from within the cloud of volcanic emissions (source of shuttle's eventual fatal problems) so the natives do not see them).

Inference remains intact.

[YARN]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

I'd be more interested in the explanation for why the Enterprise even needs to go underwater.

I think they realized that they created a cool visual moment when the Enterprise warped into the atmosphere of Titan (apparently starships jump into and out of warp BSG style now) and they though, "How can we do a moment like that again?"

In the next film we see her rise out of the sands of some desert next to some alien pyramid.

[Greg Cox]

YARN wrote:

---

In the next film we see her rise out of the sands of some desert next to some alien pyramid.

Oooh! I like that!

[CorporalClegg]

There doesn't need to be.

[Arpy]

Jackson_RoyKirk, I don't know or care if you're a man or a woman: marry me.

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Arpy wrote:

---

Jackson_RoyKirk, I don't know or care if you're a man or a woman: marry me.

Man.
Straight.
Married.


But we can still be friends

I suppose maybe that is in response to my "Shatner's Gremlin" reply to you?

[chardman]

The OP wants to know if they'll explain how the Enterprise can go underwater? Well, perhaps they will, but until they do, I suggest that the OP get in line, and wait his turn, as there's already a very long line of us who are still waiting to get "treknical" explanations for stunts that Trek pulled in TOS back in the sixties.

[JarodRussell]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

Oooh! I like that!

Ha, but you can't put that scene into a novel, can you?

[Greg Cox]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

Ha, but you can't put that scene into a novel, can you?

Is that a dare?