Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by draderman, May 28, 2013.
Allow me to test my memory of Trek, here: Yesterday's Enterprise ?
Yeah. The guy who could tell Scotty exactly what access port to open. Sure.
There's also "The Apple", where Kirk tells Scotty "Discard the warp drive nacelles if you have to, and crack out of there with the main section, but get that ship out of there!"
It's unclear whether he means a saucer separation (which would imply the engineering hull was the secondary section), or literally jettisoning just the nacelles (leaving saucer + engineering hull as the "main section"). The former fits better with later Trek (have we ever seen just the nacelles jettisoned?) and seems to be the general fan assumption, however.
I did find a couple of other instances in TNG after I posted, but "Yesterday's Enterprise" is the one I had in mind.
I don't think we have, but I could be mistaken about that.
What the hell does this have to do with Federation terminology ?
Gosh, I'm good for remembering useless trivia !
Probably the same way people confuse space ships with boats. Strictly speaking, starships should have a fuselage, not a hull.
Or a hull (saucer) with three nacelles.
Ever heard the phrase "wash behind your ears?"
I've been using the site for years also, and have noticed the same thing as you. Unfortunately, it is one of the only online resources for trek transcripts. I know it would be a lot of work, but i may just spend some time copying the transcripts to my pc so i have them, just in case. Whe i made my Voyager 47 video, the transcripts turned what could have been a daunting task into one of the easiest compilation vids Ive ever made http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPoiH0JlQ9A
From The Making of Star Trek
You have no idea how much that's making me laugh right now. Good one!
Not to beat a dead horse, but...
From the Star Fleet Technical Manual (Franz Joseph)
Thanks. I laughed the whole time i was making it
Official material only, please. Fan-made stuff doesn't count.
I'll assume you're joking, here.
I agree the Starfleet tech manual is considered fan-ish, and is defiantly non-canonical. It was published back in the 70's by a German named Frans Joseph, who wasn't a fan and had nothing to do with Star Trek. He was a technical artist and his Trekkie daughter and her friends begged him to do up drawings for them of phasers and ship schematics etc. Eventually he had done so many that he decided to publish them.
It's interesting tho because years later 3 of his made-up star-ships were mentioned in The Motion Picture, including his registry numbers. Then in Wrath of Khan, they used one of his ship schematics on-screen. Same for Search for Spock and Undiscovered Country. Images from the manual even showed up in TNG, including the image I posted above:
Beat That Horse!....It is what it was.......
This is epic stuff, now, guys. Epic stuff.
I don't think that even real people operating real starships will ever get a pass from us. STID had several big blunders, Khan misusing a word in dialogue where everyone was on edge is hardly a problem.
For all we know, "behind the aft nacelle" could be correctly identifying a place on the ship without making sense to us. Maybe the warp nacelle on the smaller ships like the Kelvin was called an aft nacelle, and "behind" meant behind the place of attachment, and Khan incorrectly used it to refer to the place where the secondary hull was attached to the primary hull. Or maybe he fucked up his sentence just like the writer who wrote his line, and correcting yourself in a middle of a treat is not the right place to do it.
Or whatever. I don't even hear what he says.
I guess the assumption is that Khan should know what he's talking about -- and that if some error is made when issuing a basic threat, it tends to diminish the power of said threat; even when the other characters proceed as normal (because they're as dumb as Khan is).
I dunno. This mistake isn't really that big of a deal, per se, but it's quite revealing when lumped in with everything else about the quality and scope of thinking behind this film (and the previous one), IMO. It's almost like the writers put various Star Trek terms into a blender or some simple computer program and just went with whatever emerged. If it sounded passable, they made it a "go".
There's a bit of irony there...if we're to assume that Khan should know what he's talking about, then why don't we assume Khan knows what he's talking about?
Separate names with a comma.