State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by HaplessCrewman, Sep 24, 2013.

  1. Set Harth

    Set Harth Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Location:
    Angmar
    That question has been answered by several people and in various ways. For example, how do you know where you're teleporting to?
     
  2. BigJake

    BigJake Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2013
    Location:
    No matter where you go, there you are.
    Where, however, it only spends a brief amount of time. Generally speaking, you would nevertheless agree that long spells in atmosphere = bad for starships the size of the Enterprise, right? (Voyager in fact made a specific point about this by giving its starship the then-never-before-seen ability to land in atmospheres.)

    In fact, the creators agree. Hence the thrilling sequence at the end of STID where the Enterprise is about to break up on reentry if Kirk doesn't save it. Which, I know this is gauche but still, some might say was perhaps slightly inconsistent with the ship being able to hide on the bottom of oceans.
     
  3. BigJake

    BigJake Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2013
    Location:
    No matter where you go, there you are.
    I would actually say the canon explanation for this is pretty consistent on the grounds of spaceships being designed for space, and equipped to handle space-related hazards, whereas the attempts to discard it because SQUEEEE are rather more questionable.

    I'm honestly not arsed if you like the movie. It's cool to like processed sandwich spread, too; it's just not cool to claim it is caviar and denounce the rest of us as snobs when we tell you that is not the case.

    I am sure it has. Unfortunately there is a difference between an answer and a good answer. How do you know where you're transporting to, for instance? Anything from telescopy to satellites to robot ships would suffice. You just flat-out would not need a ship like Enterprise.
     
  4. Nerys Myk

    Nerys Myk Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2001
    Location:
    Out of my brain on the 5:15
    The technology is already different in this timeline and the tech came from over a century in the future. Once it gets perfected it's possible that Starships as a mode of transportation might become obsolete. But that doesn't need to happen anytime soon. There also might be bugs in the tech that might render it impractical on a large scale.

    The first one makes sense. I forget if there was a reason in the film why they were in the ocean.

    The second one. I think it's design is more than adequate for limited submersion. If it can stand the various extremes of space a little water won't hurt it.

    Where is it stated the the Enterprise would break apart when entering an atmosphere? It worked fine in the atmosphere of Earth in "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" and managed to get out of Earth's atmosphere without any trouble.

    [yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNeMNXQBzd8[/yt] This is a ship with shields and antigrav ability. A little atmosphere and gravity is water off ducks back.

    Other ships like the Bird of Prey, the Voyager and the Vulcan ship from First Contact didn't seem to have any problems with atmospheres.

    The only reason the Enterprise has transporters is landing the ship every week would have been expensive SFX wise. So "design wise" it could land if the budget allowed it.
     
  5. BigJake

    BigJake Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2013
    Location:
    No matter where you go, there you are.
    A future in which it was never seen before an Abrams film either, because previous creators were smarter than to effectively break the setting and premise by introducing it.

    It looks cool when they come out, and Zoe Saldana looks hella sexy in a wetsuit. Far as I can tell, those are the reasons.

    (And they're understandable reasons, just insufficient ones. I hear tell space is a pretty reliable source of cool visuals, and you don't need an ocean sequence to put Zoe Saldana in a sexy outfit.)

    It is stated incredibly super-clearly in the entirety of pre-Abrams canon that a ship the size of the Enterprise cannot and does not land. Yes, "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" notwithstanding. The nacelle-and-saucers design not being particularly aerodynamic or grav-friendly would be a pretty good reason.

    Have this here Voyager featurette on the topic if you don't believe me:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBhLOrzFs4g

    The Bird of Prey can because it is small and aerodynamic. Voyager can because it is -- relative to the Enterprise -- likewise. Voyager made a big deal out of how it was a ship that could land, unlike larger starships that could not land.

    And again: when not tempted by cool sea visuals and Zoe Saldana in a wetsuit, the creators of STID agree with this. That's what the whole final-act "the Enterprise is crashing" thing is based on; the Enterprise was breaking up on entering atmosphere. Breaking canon is one thing, but they couldn't even manage it self-consistently.

    There is again a term for that. It is Bad Writing.
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2013
  6. M'Sharak

    M'Sharak Definitely Herbert. Maybe. Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Location:
    Terra Inlandia
    Whoa, whoa, whoa. Slow down there, Charlie. You're getting defensive already and we've yet to see even one person denounce you as a snob (nor, I suspect, will we. I do hope that won't come as too much of a disappointment.)

    Well, then - it should be no trouble at all for you to simply run down the answers already tendered and point out which ones are the good answers and which are not. Diagrams, graphics, and other supporting materials which explain why would earn extra credit.
     
  7. drt

    drt Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2013
    The transwarp beaming seems to be a one-way trip, from everything presented in '09 and ID, a very precise transporter lock is needed to beam someone up but not down, so it appears you can send somebody to another planet with the transwarp beaming, but I'm not sure there's a way to bring them back.
     
  8. Therin of Andor

    Therin of Andor Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Location:
    New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
    Now I just wanna rerun that "The Onion" report on the 2009 film one more time! ;)
     
  9. BigJake

    BigJake Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2013
    Location:
    No matter where you go, there you are.
    Quoted without comment. I will leave who is actually "getting defensive" in this scenario as an exercise for the reader.
     
  10. Therin of Andor

    Therin of Andor Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Location:
    New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
    Umm, M'Sharak was offering you some advice, in his position as Mod. AFAIK.
     
  11. BigJake

    BigJake Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2013
    Location:
    No matter where you go, there you are.
    Well, not really my place to debate M'Sharak's moderating style, in that case. Sorry if it seemed like I was being a dick.

    We can at least agree that that old Onion piece was darned funny. The line "Gene Roddenberry was the hack who created Star Trek like way back in the Forties or something..." is immortal.
     
  12. Nerys Myk

    Nerys Myk Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2001
    Location:
    Out of my brain on the 5:15
    It comes from a point in the future we've never seen. (post Nemesis)

    Gary Seven used a transporter that took him from his homeworld to Earth.

    The concept of sub-space transporting (which also covers vast distances) was explored in TNG:Bloodlines.
    Spatial trajector
    Sub-quantum transporter
    Translocator


    TIY is canon.

    Where is this super-clearly stated? Series, episode, movie?

    Does a ship with shields and anti-grav really need to worry about being aerodynamic or even subject to gravity?

    I think a controlled entry into an atmosphere in an undamaged ship is different than an uncontrolled one in a damaged ship.
     
  13. BigJake

    BigJake Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2013
    Location:
    No matter where you go, there you are.
    Gary Seven was supposed to be setting up a futuristic espionage show where he worked for aliens advanced far beyond Federation technology. Breaking the premise of starship exploration was not a problem for him.

    (Actually a shame that series never materialized, it could have been fun.)

    You will notice that all of the other examples you list are either specifically designed to have a fatal flaw in order that they not render starships superfluous, or are in the hands of non-Federation actors. There is a reason for that.

    It is also not an example of the Enterprise landing, just of its surviving a very short spell in an atmosphere. It's really not as much of a counterexample as some are wont to make of it.

    In fact I provided you a link to one of many quite unequivocal examples, from the promotional material for Voyager. You may have missed the edit, so have a look again.
     
  14. Harvey

    Harvey Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2005
    Location:
    Los Angeles, California
    No. The final act was based on the Enterprise (nearly) crashing on the surface of the Earth because it lost all power after battling the Vengeance.
     
  15. Nerys Myk

    Nerys Myk Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2001
    Location:
    Out of my brain on the 5:15
    Assignment: Earth is canon. No reason why the future UFP can't duplicate it.

    Yep and a fatal flaw can be found for Scotty' transwarp beaming too. It doesn't have to be the automobile.

    I used it as an example of the ship operating in an atmosphere. Which you said couldn't be done. The ship also escaped said atmosphere.

    Promotional material does not count. That was just some hey look at this hand waving trying to prove Voyager was "different". What else you got? Especially referring to the Enterprise in-universe.
     
  16. plynch

    plynch Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Location:
    Outer Graceland
    Judging the movie as a movie-goer: Meh. Not to my taste. But a decent big blockbustery effects-o-rama. It did well but not amazingly, as both articles mention, I believe.

    As a Trek fan, I second both articles. Convoluted film, Spock on Skype (haha), some cold spy-ish dude named Khan. Spock yelling Khaaan, ridiculous. I saw it once in theater, won't buy it, and might not see the next, based on the first two. I'm not into all the "kewl," so it was lame to me. Make an original star trek movie next time: exploration, action, and philosophical. Some of the movies have done it. Many episodes have done it. Can the present production team do it? I have my doubts.

    Maybe space exploration is not a good topic for the 2010s. It's not 1967.

    Maybe the problem is "Trek" is now just a franchise owned by a corporation which wants to spin it into money. So it hires some currently "hot" producer/writers. There doesn't seem to be a human truly at the center (like GR or Berman) invested in this concept, desiring to use it to tell stories. Now it seems like, "Well, we have to make a third movie that grosses $XYZ, let's get it done and over with. YMMV
     
  17. BigJake

    BigJake Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2013
    Location:
    No matter where you go, there you are.
    Except that it eliminates any reason for Starfleet to exist, no. But since it does, prior creators did not do so. Wisely.

    Scotty's transwarp beaming seems to work quite reliably.

    As it had to. Very quickly. Because canonically that is not where starships are supposed to be.

    That is rather conveniently selective of you, and kind of doesn't make me feel like you're engaging the conversation in good faith, to be honest. But here, have some science.

    Note in particular something he says that I think is very worth paying attention to:

     
  18. Khan444

    Khan444 Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2013
    No, NONE of the MOVIES were focused on exploration, sorry to disappoint you. TMP came closest, and it was a failure both critically and financially. The TV SHOWS were about exploration and discovery. You can do that in a twenty plus episode season better than a two hour movie. The films have always been geared more towards a mass audience, so this is nothing new.
     
  19. Therin of Andor

    Therin of Andor Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Location:
    New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
    Yep. I almost mentioned "Planet of the Titans", a proposal for TMP, in which we were to learn that, at the end of the 5YM, the Enterprise saucer had separated and softlanded on a planet, and was considered lost for a decade. IIRC.

    The Mego model of TMP's Enterprise even incorporated a separation feature, and four legs on the saucer so it could land on planets.

    No, it ended up doing very well financially. Probably from so many fans going back time after time.
     
  20. drt

    drt Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2013
    TMP wasn't a failure financially - corrected for inflation, it out performed every ST movie until '09.
     

Share This Page