Enterprise Pic

[BenRoethig]

JBElliott said:
Construction of wooden ocean going vessels in the 1700's is much different that construction of modern ocean going vessels. The basic materials used (wood v. metal) mean vastly different methods are used. The similarities between the two methods owe more to the overall design commonalities than anything else. Point in case: welding; it's used today, but it wasn't 240 years ago.

Techniques have changed, but the one thread that remains is that it is built where access is easy for the workers. You don't see too many ships built in the middle of the ocean. Likewise, doing a scratch build from in zero G vacuum environment would be very difficult and probably take considerably more time and effort than one that has its hull sections built on earth and then is assembled in space. A space build would require a lot of EVAs and while times may change, human endurance doesn't.

[Jackson_Roykirk]

trevanian said:
Wow, is that a real interview? That's some far-out reasoning and justificating (yeah, I know that ain't a word, but I guess I have 'creative license' the same as the next guy.)

If they've put that much ... I guess you'd call it 'thought' ... into this gravity well/warp calibration thing, it must be a plot point. Otherwise, you'd be thinking they were only coming up with these remarks to deflect complaints that they were pulling this stuff out of their nether regions .... oops!

Roddenberry, Jefferies, and Justman also put a lot of thought into many of the technological aspects of Star Trek that never made it to the Big screen or the small screen as "plot Points".

Most big Star Trek fans embrace this attention to detail, but you seem to not want Abrams and co. to have the same attention to detail.

Here's the way I see some of the complaining fans:

Roddenberry's attention to detail: "brilliant! He built an entire universe in which to tell his stories.

Abrams attention to detail: "he's backpedelling and deflecting complaints."

[bassomatic]

Looks ok - I wish they had stuck to the classic white from the series. I know most of the younger fans would want an 'updated' look for a 2008 movie. But the idea of a prequal should not always be to update the original, sometimes what was should stay what is. I guess I mean to say is, if the intention of the movie is to re-start the franchise, and, is the re-starting can not be done without making things "better" that they were, that maybe it should be left alone. Or at least they could have just gone a little farther in the future that where ST X left off.

[Sharr Khan]

A lot of Trek fans aren't enormously fond of actual science fiction and the speculation/projection/extrapolation that's part of it - witness the continuing howls at the mere suggestion of universal wealth or a moneyless economy in the 24th century.

I can't recall any wealthy people in the 24th Century Trek. The concept of wealth must be so far removed from how we define it now as to be meaningless to a current viewer But none of this either is about "real science fiction" by any means, it is about social commentary though and GR becoming more comfortable burying his political views into Star Trek...

Sharr

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Sharr Khan said:
I can't recall any wealthy people in the 24th Century Trek.

It seems to be a meaningless concept in the 24th century context. There probably are quite a few people who use the endlessly available material luxury of the most developed worlds as an endless playground - owning a great many houses or something - they just happen not to be doing anything interesting from the POV of our folks way out there exploring space.

[trevanian]

Jackson_Roykirk said:

Roddenberry, Jefferies, and Justman also put a lot of thought into many of the technological aspects of Star Trek that never made it to the Big screen or the small screen as "plot Points".

Most big Star Trek fans embrace this attention to detail, but you seem to not want Abrams and co. to have the same attention to detail.

Here's the way I see some of the complaining fans:

Roddenberry's attention to detail: "brilliant! He built an entire universe in which to tell his stories.

Abrams attention to detail: "he's backpedelling and deflecting complaints."

There's a difference between creating a backstory designed to sustain for an indefinite number of episodes and creating a backstory for a single feature film (admittedly designed to spawn others) that is supposed to make the general public want to see Trek. Figuring out that warp engines need to made in a gravity well sounds awfully damned specific for a detail that would only otherwise be in a writer's bible (something you don't create for a feature anyway.)

Also, while the original GR bible for Trek has plenty of good stuff in it, I by no means think that is the crucial ingredient for making the show work; that lies with the execution, specifically by Coon, though Black and Lucas and Justman and Fontana contributed massively as well. GR could have spent five years writing the most interesting bible, and if the captain/science officer dynamic had been with Jeffrey Hunter and Leonard Nimoy, there would be no trek cult or bbs or probably even fifteen episodes playing on TVland.

I don't think your criticism is invalid, given the variety of complaints and complainers; just that it isn't applicable to my comment.

[Jackson_Roykirk]

^
^^That's no different than Roddenberry inventing transporters solely because they made the production decision early that it would cost too much to show the ship landing.

Fan: "Why doesn't the ship land?"

Roddenberry: "There's no need to land silly fanboy; we have Transporters!"

[trevanian]

Transporters were a key device on the series, a key to the storytelling.

Knowing that warp engines have to be made in a gravity well is a pretty tiny little detail, one that would be about 8 millionth on the list for storytelling (if that high), UNLESS it was a particular story point (or thought up to deflect criticism.)

[Plecostomus]

Only problem I have with the welding is you should be wearing a full face-mask and you don't touch the rod like that. I can see arc-welding being done on some structural joints with a followup technobabble to seal and anneal the joint.

*shurg* Arc welding is an old old process by now, it's a very stable controllable process now, a skilled welder can weld anything to anything and make a nice smooth joint doing it.

While stick-weld is one of the most dramatic in terms of sparks second only to oxyfuel cutting I would have been running a TIG or MIG welder. Better joint better control.

*shrug* Overall it's a minor MINOR quibble. I enjoyed the trailer for what it is.

[EliyahuQeoni]

I'm still bit baffled that people are getting so hung up on welders in the trailer. Talk about not being able to see the forest for the trees...

[Jackson_Roykirk]

trevanian said:
Transporters were a key device on the series, a key to the storytelling.

Knowing that warp engines have to be made in a gravity well is a pretty tiny little detail, one that would be about 8 millionth on the list for storytelling (if that high), UNLESS it was a particular story point (or thought up to deflect criticism.)

The point is that Orci made that statement because he is just trying to prove to the hardcore fans that they are putting at least a little thought into what they are putting on paper and on film. I can't criticize him for that, but I do criticize him for trying too hard to reach out to the hardcore fans by explaining the minutiae of his thought process.

He probably better off just doing what he thinks is best and shutting up about it. This episode proves that.

[Samuel T. Cogley]

EliyahuQeoni said:
I'm still bit baffled that people are getting so hung up on welders in the trailer. Talk about not being able to see the forest for the trees...

Speaking of trees... The trees that I was able to make out in the background in the trailer were not at all the kind of trees that are indigenous to areas where a shipyard of any kind would be located. Now, I suppose that, since this is in the future, maybe there is some way that genetic alterations or artificial environments could be generated in such a way to allow those trees to thrive so close to an industrial area, but without further explanation from Bob Orci (and I mean a good explanation), I may have to pass on this film. Sloppy, really.

[Jackson_Roykirk]

EliyahuQeoni said:
I'm still bit baffled that people are getting so hung up on welders in the trailer. Talk about not being able to see the forest for the trees...

I agree -- on another thread I noted that the trailer for 'First Contact' included a Borg ship that was in the shape of a Starfleet Emblem.

Obviously this was done just for dramatic effect, and one could argue that the welder is only shown for dramatic effect.

[starburst]

I love the idea people still hold (or should that be delusion) that this Enterprise will come before the Cage so it fits in with 'canon'

With the entire TOS crew being cast in this movie how can there be any doubt that some part (if not alot/most/all) of this film be set on Kirks Enterprise with Kirk in command, Sulu at the helm ect and this new ship will be THE ship.

For me if this happens I will deal with it as from the start Ive been able to comprehend a reality where TOS and Star Trek can coexist but not have to fit together. If this comes to pass though I feel sorry for those of you who have break downs over it...after all its a TV show (or in this case movie)

I just wanna see more and dont care how it fits into canon or if it does at all (the story will explain how where and why) I just want to see more of a new version of my favourite ship...a new version of THE ship not some prettender with an A, B, C, D or E!

[ST-One]

trevanian said:
The Enterprise in this pic looks like concept art, or a frame from an animatic. l honest to Christ can't figure out why concept art-level work has got so many people excited. If this is actually a final, then it says something about how little visual credibility means to filmgoers. (Unless maybe it looks better in motion? Guess I'll look for the trailer in a couple days and see what the high rez version plays like. Expectation is now low enough that I probably won't spit at the monitor.)

Now, after seeing the HD-teaser, do you still say this looks like an animatic?