RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,382
Posts: 5,357,353
Members: 24,628
Currently online: 639
Newest member: suryaprabu02

TrekToday headlines

The Gene Roddenberry Project Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Jul 30

Moore: No Deep Space Nine Regrets
By: T'Bonz on Jul 30

Pegg Star Wars Rumor
By: T'Bonz on Jul 30

Borg Cube Fridge
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Free Enterprise Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Siddig To Join Game Of Thrones
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Sci-Fried To Release New Album
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Star Trek/Planet of the Apes Crossover
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Star Trek into Darkness Soundtrack
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Horse 1, Shatner 0
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28


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 January 22 2008, 11:48 PM   #436
Jackson_Roykirk
Commodore
 
Jackson_Roykirk's Avatar
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Re: Enterprise Pic

FlyingTigress said:

Well, most of your ordinary engines only go up to [Warp] 10. But ours go up to "11"

/The Spinal Tap Corps of Engineers
In fact, here's a picture of Ship's Engineer Lt. Cmdr. Nigel Tufnel pointing out the warp speed controls for those big engines on ST:XI's Enterprise:

__________________

...With shoes that cut, and eyes that burn like cigarettes
With fingernails that shine like justice and a voice that is dark like tinted glass...
Jackson_Roykirk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23 2008, 12:12 AM   #437
Sharr Khan
Rear Admiral
 
Sharr Khan's Avatar
 
Location: USA Ct
View Sharr Khan's Twitter Profile
Re: Enterprise Pic

It's old had and makes the ships look more like something our of the present and less like something out of the future.
I love statements like this, since they presume to know the shape of the future. Regretfully the best most reliably gauge for that is taking a glance at the past since the future is always rooted in it.

If scifi is supposed to be extrapolating (if? I'm not sure it does that very well...) then it should be taking its cues from the NOW.

Sharr
Sharr Khan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23 2008, 12:23 AM   #438
ancient
Vice Admiral
 
ancient's Avatar
 
Location: United States
Re: Enterprise Pic

Are we still going on about the g**damn welders?! Allow me to explain this from the non-fan, non-way-too-much-thought POV:

The ship is under construction: what is the most recognizable way to depict that? Welders. Joe Schmo, the potential consumer, will recognise what is going on with no explanation. They're welding a hull = big ship being built.

The alternative is to use some more advanced, 'realistic' depiction, such as growing the ship with crystals or using some nano-bot thing, which would require ten minutes of geeky documentary exposition for Joe Schmo to understand, at which point he'll have decided three things:

1. Not seeing that bullshit.
2. Must get another chilli-dog.
3. Fondle girlfriend.

Welders are definitly the way to go.
__________________
----------------------------
Time Travel was and will be confusing
ancient is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23 2008, 12:32 AM   #439
aridas sofia
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Enterprise Pic

Sharr Khan said:
It's old had and makes the ships look more like something our of the present and less like something out of the future.
I love statements like this, since they presume to know the shape of the future. Regretfully the best most reliably gauge for that is taking a glance at the past since the future is always rooted in it.

If scifi is supposed to be extrapolating (if? I'm not sure it does that very well...) then it should be taking its cues from the NOW.

Sharr
Science fiction relies on extrapolation, the process of imagining relatively probable worlds of the future by utilizing logical extensions of scientific and cultural curves and trends.
The fact that you question the role of extrapolation in SF explains why you constantly berate any and every post that asks the film to, you know... look futuristic. To many moviegoers, "looks futuristic" will mean some effort put into logical extrapolation. Will it be "taking its cues from the NOW"? Sure. Just like the airplane took cues from birds.

It's funny how today we laugh at past depictions of the flying future that depicted men flapping wings, isn't it?
aridas sofia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23 2008, 12:43 AM   #440
Sharr Khan
Rear Admiral
 
Sharr Khan's Avatar
 
Location: USA Ct
View Sharr Khan's Twitter Profile
Re: Enterprise Pic

It's funny how today we laugh at past depictions of the flying future that depicted men flapping wings, isn't it?
And the "extrapolation" is more often then not off the mark. Since we don't have any flying cars, tubes that we use to teleport with ect. Way back in the 50's futurists were thinking we'd have fully automatic kitchens - I have yet to see that come to be.

What I'm saying is, if our past and present is any indication our future will likely look and feel more like Babylon 5 then Star Trek. There will be familiar methods of doing things.

And I do not "berate any and every post that asks the film to, you know... look futuristic." I do however expect a more grounded functional depiction of the future here. One that joe whomever will think ok that makes sense. Not something Jetsons like with technology overriding the human elements.

Sharr
Sharr Khan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23 2008, 12:52 AM   #441
aridas sofia
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Enterprise Pic

The only thing the past shows us about the future is how dramatically different it will be. We do have nearly fully automatic kitchens. Robots that scrub the floors, microwaves that can prepare pre-packed meals in seconds, ovens that can refrigerate food, then use pre-programmed instructions to have your meal cooked and ready to eat when you get home, and refrigerators that have a link to a world wide web of information, including the means of having your groceries delivered to you based on electronic tagging that tells your refrigerator when you've used up your milk!.

The future? That will be unrecognizable. Arthur Clarke told me so.
aridas sofia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23 2008, 01:01 AM   #442
Sharr Khan
Rear Admiral
 
Sharr Khan's Avatar
 
Location: USA Ct
View Sharr Khan's Twitter Profile
Re: Enterprise Pic

aridas sofia said:
The only thing the past shows us about the future is how dramatically different it will be. We do have nearly fully automatic kitchens. Robots that scrub the floors, microwaves that can prepare pre-packed meals in seconds, ovens that can refrigerate food, then use pre-programmed instructions to have your meal cooked and ready to eat when you get home, and refrigerators that have a link to a world wide web of information, including the means of having your groceries delivered to you based on electronic tagging that tells your refrigerator when you've used up your milk!.

The future? That will be unrecognizable. Arthur Clarke told me so.
Funny no one's home I've been in can in any truthful sense of the word be defined as automatic there is still a huge human element involved in all of those things you mention. The microwave hasn't been "futuristic" for decades and even premade food is a product of the past not some ultra new innovation.

No one I know owns a cleaning robot, see them advertised on tv all the time - not sure how well they work and their function seems highly limited at best.

Our present really isn't so alien from our past. But how one defines that I guess is what lens we're looking through. Humans still behave well human... and getting from here to there involves expending some energy, cars still use combustion engines and go ahead on blacktop.

Sharr
Sharr Khan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23 2008, 01:15 AM   #443
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
trevanian's Avatar
 
Re: Enterprise Pic

aridas sofia said:
The only thing the past shows us about the future is how dramatically different it will be. We do have nearly fully automatic kitchens. Robots that scrub the floors, microwaves that can prepare pre-packed meals in seconds, ovens that can refrigerate food, then use pre-programmed instructions to have your meal cooked and ready to eat when you get home, and refrigerators that have a link to a world wide web of information, including the means of having your groceries delivered to you based on electronic tagging that tells your refrigerator when you've used up your milk!.

The future? That will be unrecognizable. Arthur Clarke told me so.
This is really turning into a Promethean vs Luddite argument, and I don't think anything you or me or anybody else says is going to sway him (don't let that stop you from continuing, though, I love the way you write as much as I like the content.)
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23 2008, 06:32 AM   #444
Holytomato
Fleet Captain
 
Re: Enterprise Pic

"Well, most of your ordinary engines only go up to [Warp] 10. But ours go up to "11""

This was stolen from Spinal Tap!

No! Doctor Who! It's not O R I G I N A L



The 1964 Cage pre production Enterprise was the TMP Refit with the nacelles, and pylons that were given to the Enterprise -E.

Star Trek XI: The way it was always meant to be.
Holytomato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23 2008, 02:12 PM   #445
aridas sofia
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Enterprise Pic

Holytomato said:

The 1964 Cage pre production Enterprise was the TMP Refit with the nacelles, and pylons that were given to the Enterprise -E.

Star Trek XI: The way it was always meant to be.
That has got to be one of the funnier and goofier things I've read on this forum filled with some pretty damned funny and goofy things.
aridas sofia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23 2008, 06:13 PM   #446
scotthm
Rear Admiral
 
Location: USA
Re: Enterprise Pic

Cary L. Brown said:
The A/B/C-deck superstructure is... troubling. ...Not because it will make for a bad movie, but rather... it begs the question of "why make this change?" I can't see how it would make for a better, or a worse, movie, in and of itself. Can any of you?
I suppose directors and production designers who are being paid to design movies feel they need to leave their mark.

---------------
scotthm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23 2008, 06:23 PM   #447
BolianAuthor
Writer, Battlestar Urantia
 
Location: Torrance, California
Send a message via AIM to BolianAuthor Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to BolianAuthor
Re: Enterprise Pic

JBElliott said:
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...
It's not the welding per se, it's what the welding represents. That is welding represents a 20th and 21rst century level of technology while the movie is set in the 23rd century where things like welding would be antique at best. Welding shows a lack of imagination and a reliance on what's been done so many times before. The same goes for the "aztecking" or panelled look. It's old had and makes the ships look more like something our of the present and less like something out of the future.
Okay, the BolianAdmiral was bound to post in this thread, but bear with me... what I am going to say is N O T a put-down of the trailer... it is an explanation of my feelings towards it, and why I feel that way.

Firstly, regarding the welding... welding DOES exist... even up to the time of ships such as the 1701-D and the Voyager... the ST:TNG Technical Manual refers to an updated form of welding, called "gamma-welding"... so there CAN be welders in a Trek construction yard.

Now for my general thoughts on this whole thing...

The ship being built on ground... 75% of me hates it... 25% of me loves it... allow me to explain...

Why I hate it... I hate it from a logistical standpoint. There is NO reason for the 1701 to be built on land, when ships even OLDER that it were built in orbit... the NX-01, and that "Venture Star"-looking ship in the opening credits of ENT. Why would a ship MORE advanced, need to be built on a surface? Even IF it were feasable to build a ship as massive as a Constitution-Class on land... with Trek's technology... why would you? All you would be doing, is assembling major components, only to have to devote (waste) even MORE time, manpower, and energy (and cost), to then transport all those massive components into space... expenditures that would have been totally avoided, by building the whole shebang in orbit from the get-go. That's what bothered me most about this whole trailer... the shot of the saucer under construction, on its platform, as part of one of the pylons is also visible... that shot reminded me of the Jupiter II, from "Lost In Space"... and the LIS universe has less advanced tech than TOS Star Trek. The last thing I don't like about the scene, is the look... I LIKE the fact that they are making it so realistic... THAT element I do like... very much... but it is clear they are going for a darker feel, more in line with the new BSG kind of look. If Trek has shown us anything, it's that TOS was light, colorful, and "happy", for lack of a better term. Kirk, Spock, Bones, and Scotty all joked around with each other, and were genuine friends... I hope they keep that element, and don't make this a dark and moody film... that is not at all what TOS was.

I absolutely hate the corridors... just hate them. That's all I'll say on that.

The design of the ship itself... all I'll say is I saw this coming from the very first moment I laid eyes on Gabe's Enterprise... so I was in no way surprised. Again, this is all I'll say on that.

Okay... now what I DO like about the ship being built on Earth...

One phrase... the imagination of a child. I'll explain. As Trekkers, we have all at one point wondered with the innocence of a child, just what it would be like, if the Earth governments of today were to band together, and jointly build a starship Enterprise, with what we have. I am convinced this trailer is what such an endeavor would look like... so on that merit... I REALLY like it a whole lot.

Just my two cents.
BolianAuthor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23 2008, 08:33 PM   #448
Vektor
Rear Admiral
 
Vektor's Avatar
 
Location: Spokane, WA, USA
Re: Enterprise Pic

BolianAdmiral said:
Why I hate it... I hate it from a logistical standpoint. There is NO reason for the 1701 to be built on land, when ships even OLDER that it were built in orbit... the NX-01, and that "Venture Star"-looking ship in the opening credits of ENT. Why would a ship MORE advanced, need to be built on a surface? Even IF it were feasable to build a ship as massive as a Constitution-Class on land... with Trek's technology... why would you? All you would be doing, is assembling major components, only to have to devote (waste) even MORE time, manpower, and energy (and cost), to then transport all those massive components into space... expenditures that would have been totally avoided, by building the whole shebang in orbit from the get-go.
I really donít understand why some people have such a hard time with the concept of building a starship on the ground. Sure, Iíll grant that it is counterintuitive and downright implausible when viewed from our own 21st century frame of reference where gravity is the main impediment to our conquest of space, but we already know that gravity is basically a non-issue in Trek from at least the 23rd century on. Trek starships routinely zip around solar systems with little or no regard to gravitational influences or acceleration stresses that would make lifting off from the Earthís surface no more consequential than a minor course adjustment. Just because Starfleet doesnít include surface landings and takeoffs in their mission profiles doesnít mean they are too fragile to support themselves or donít have enough power to go pretty much anywhere they damn well please short of close approaches to neutron stars and black holes.

As has already been mentioned by me as well as others, in just one episode of TOS, Tomorrow is Yesterday, it was clearly established that the Enterprise is quite capable of descending to within a few miles of the Earthís surface, hovering at speeds slow enough for a 1960s jet aircraft to catch up with it, and then climbing back out again with no more ill effects than a slightly sluggish helm.

As to why older ships like the NX-01 would have been built in orbit, well, that actually makes perfect sense if you think about it. The technology for getting big ships off the surface and into space didnít always exist any more than it does today, it had to be developed along with everything else. For all we know, the NX-01 and its sister ships may have been the last to be built in orbit, largely because the infrastructure was already in place. But then somebody figured out that you could build an entire starship, or at least the parts and pieces of one, in a shirtsleeve, normal gravity environment without having to worry about pressurization, solar and cosmic radiation, micro meteors and all the other hazards that go along with human beings trying to build something in space. You donít need travel pods or transporters just to get your workers to the job site. You donít need work pods or thruster packs to maneuver components and hold things in place, just good old fashioned cranes, conveyor belts and scaffolding. And when youíre done, you just power up the engines and fly it into space, or you neutralize its mass and pull it up with tractor beams, or you attach anti-grav tugs to it and do the same thing, or any of a dozen other equally plausible methods given the technology at your disposal.

Once you take the logistics of getting into orbit out of the equation, the question is not what reason is there to build the ship on land, the question is what reason is there to build it in space? Probably there would still be a few good reasons, but would they outweigh the advantages of an Earth-normal construction environment? Arguably not.

The last thing I don't like about the scene, is the look... I LIKE the fact that they are making it so realistic... THAT element I do like... very much... but it is clear they are going for a darker feel, more in line with the new BSG kind of look. If Trek has shown us anything, it's that TOS was light, colorful, and "happy", for lack of a better term. Kirk, Spock, Bones, and Scotty all joked around with each other, and were genuine friends... I hope they keep that element, and don't make this a dark and moody film... that is not at all what TOS was.
I wouldnít read too much into the atmosphere of the teaser. It was only ďdarkerĒ inasmuch as it was shown to us at night. The darkness makes the shipís details harder to discern and adds a sense of mystery and portent, the expectant twilight before the dawn as it were. It also makes all the work lights and welding sparks much more visually dramatic than they would be in the daytime. It makes no sense to conclude from this that they are gearing the whole film toward a BSG aesthetic.

I absolutely hate the corridors... just hate them. That's all I'll say on that.
Iím reserving judgment until we have something better to go by than a grainy, ďWebcamĒ image of a corridor that may still be under construction or the equivalent of a Jeffries tube. Itís not what I would expect for a main crew corridor either but there are many circumstances under which I could happily accept it.

One phrase... the imagination of a child. I'll explain. As Trekkers, we have all at one point wondered with the innocence of a child, just what it would be like, if the Earth governments of today were to band together, and jointly build a starship Enterprise, with what we have. I am convinced this trailer is what such an endeavor would look like... so on that merit... I REALLY like it a whole lot.
Thatís an interesting way of looking at it and I agree wholeheartedly.
__________________
www.vektorvisual.com
Vektor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23 2008, 08:59 PM   #449
Holytomato
Fleet Captain
 
Re: Enterprise Pic

"The ship being built on ground... 75% of me hates it."

The Galaxy Class's parts were shown being built on the ground.

Remember, "San Fransisco Navy Yards" on the Enterprise's plaque?

Navy construction is done at night.

:thumbsup:
Holytomato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23 2008, 09:45 PM   #450
BolianAuthor
Writer, Battlestar Urantia
 
Location: Torrance, California
Send a message via AIM to BolianAuthor Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to BolianAuthor
Re: Enterprise Pic

Vektor said:
BolianAdmiral said:
Why I hate it... I hate it from a logistical standpoint. There is NO reason for the 1701 to be built on land, when ships even OLDER that it were built in orbit... the NX-01, and that "Venture Star"-looking ship in the opening credits of ENT. Why would a ship MORE advanced, need to be built on a surface? Even IF it were feasable to build a ship as massive as a Constitution-Class on land... with Trek's technology... why would you? All you would be doing, is assembling major components, only to have to devote (waste) even MORE time, manpower, and energy (and cost), to then transport all those massive components into space... expenditures that would have been totally avoided, by building the whole shebang in orbit from the get-go.
I really donít understand why some people have such a hard time with the concept of building a starship on the ground. Sure, Iíll grant that it is counterintuitive and downright implausible when viewed from our own 21st century frame of reference where gravity is the main impediment to our conquest of space, but we already know that gravity is basically a non-issue in Trek from at least the 23rd century on. Trek starships routinely zip around solar systems with little or no regard to gravitational influences or acceleration stresses that would make lifting off from the Earthís surface no more consequential than a minor course adjustment. Just because Starfleet doesnít include surface landings and takeoffs in their mission profiles doesnít mean they are too fragile to support themselves or donít have enough power to go pretty much anywhere they damn well please short of close approaches to neutron stars and black holes.

As has already been mentioned by me as well as others, in just one episode of TOS, Tomorrow is Yesterday, it was clearly established that the Enterprise is quite capable of descending to within a few miles of the Earthís surface, hovering at speeds slow enough for a 1960s jet aircraft to catch up with it, and then climbing back out again with no more ill effects than a slightly sluggish helm.

As to why older ships like the NX-01 would have been built in orbit, well, that actually makes perfect sense if you think about it. The technology for getting big ships off the surface and into space didnít always exist any more than it does today, it had to be developed along with everything else. For all we know, the NX-01 and its sister ships may have been the last to be built in orbit, largely because the infrastructure was already in place. But then somebody figured out that you could build an entire starship, or at least the parts and pieces of one, in a shirtsleeve, normal gravity environment without having to worry about pressurization, solar and cosmic radiation, micro meteors and all the other hazards that go along with human beings trying to build something in space. You donít need travel pods or transporters just to get your workers to the job site. You donít need work pods or thruster packs to maneuver components and hold things in place, just good old fashioned cranes, conveyor belts and scaffolding. And when youíre done, you just power up the engines and fly it into space, or you neutralize its mass and pull it up with tractor beams, or you attach anti-grav tugs to it and do the same thing, or any of a dozen other equally plausible methods given the technology at your disposal.

Once you take the logistics of getting into orbit out of the equation, the question is not what reason is there to build the ship on land, the question is what reason is there to build it in space? Probably there would still be a few good reasons, but would they outweigh the advantages of an Earth-normal construction environment? Arguably not.
That's just the point... there ARE NO logistics to building this thing on the ground... not when a ship OLDER than the Connie has been shown to be built into orbit... plus, you're just not seeing my point on this... it makes NO sense, from a practicality standpoint... WHY should they go to all the trouble to build the components on the surface, somehow transport them up into space, and then do all the extra work to RE-assemble them, when the technology already exsists to just build the whole thing in space to begin with? Why waste all that extra time, energy, and maybe even cost? It is just not practical, in terms of manufacturing, technology, or economics.

Are you telling me that if you are the boss of the company that had a contract to build something like that, that YOU would want to spend the extra money and resources, manpower and energy to do all that extra crap? If so, you're company won't be making much money, with that philosophy. If you can do it cheaper and faster, with the same output quality, you will.

In regards to the sections of Galaxy-Class hull being built on the surface of Mars... yes, that is true... however... I did not say I agreed with that or liked it, did i?
BolianAuthor is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

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 12:28 PM.

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