The pitch mentioned the "recon rocket vehicle" for landings, and possible rare landings of the main ship. I tried to be careful upthread to reflect that, but it's possible I wasn't clear enough.
Great alternate movie shots
- Thread starter JJohnson
- Start date
The pitch mentioned the "recon rocket vehicle" for landings, and possible rare landings of the main ship. I tried to be careful upthread to reflect that, but it's possible I wasn't clear enough.
I liked one and disliked the other. But I'm not upset they made the effort.
Don't get me wrong, I also think the Enterprise should've been built in space, or at least, the engineering hull in space, with the saucer build on Earth, loading people in via gangways at the side. Just, something seems weird about digging a canyon in Iowa, of all places, to build a shipyard, when you could (1) build it on flat land, or (2) build in space.
The intent of my original post is that if we have to put up with a starship being built in an artificially dug canyon on Earth in the middle of farmland, then it would've looked much better being the original Enterprise than the misshapen JJ-prise.
Emotion chip, maybe. The dune buggy, I was rolling my eyes at that. That wasn't necessary to have in the movie.
I don't mind new ideas, but I'd like them to be good ideas. Hiding a starship underwater? Space contrails? Rehashing Wrath of Khan? Come on, there are new adventures to tell! You could do better than rehashing Khan and tell a story of how Kirk matured!
It seems to me that it would be safer for a ship to be in orbit, powered up and ready to maneuver or warp away, if required, than parked on the surface of a planet like a sitting duck.
I don't think anyone is promoting landing and taking off on a weekly basis. And during construction phase, a starship is warping off anywhere, in space or on the ground.
It's just nice to see the capabilities expanded to include things that it should be able to do based on the technology present.
If the Federation has the technology to suspend, via anti-gravity, a city like Stratos for centuries, then lifting starships into orbit would be child's play. Notice I say lifting, which would not be the same as taking off. (aside: I think that the discussion about surface construction can be separate from ST09's questionable depiction of it.)
Also, off-topic, the multi-post function is a bit counter-intuitive but but will keep you from running afoul of the mods. From the FAQ:
If you want to post replies to multiple posts you can select them by clicking the multi quote button. This button will change to indicate that you've selected it. Clicking post reply will then bring you to the full editor with all the posts quoted.
Also, off-topic, the multi-post function is a bit counter-intuitive but but will keep you from running afoul of the mods. From the FAQ:
If you want to post replies to multiple posts you can select them by clicking the multi quote button. This button will change to indicate that you've selected it. Clicking post reply will then bring you to the full editor with all the posts quoted.
Trouble is, those instructions are incorrect. You have to click the
Also, off-topic, the multi-post function is a bit counter-intuitive but but will keep you from running afoul of the mods. From the FAQ:
If you want to post replies to multiple posts you can select them by clicking the multi quote button. This button will change to indicate that you've selected it. Clicking post reply will then bring you to the full editor with all the posts quoted.
Trouble is, those instructions are incorrect. You have to click thefor each message and then click the "Quote" button on one of the messages, because there's no such thing as a "Post Reply" button, and the "Quick Reply" button doesn't do anything with Multi-Quote at all.
There is a "Post Reply" button under the last post on the page, on the left side, and it works as described there.
In my books I always depicted these ships as amazingly tough. So the idea of atmospheric entry or entering a planet's ocean is perfectly sensible in my humble opinion. Whether the story supported such a deviation from standard operating procedure is something very different, however.
As for a shipyard in Iowa versus San Francisco, I can accept that the point was to show people in the know that the history was changed. The ship was as different as the other characters.
Was the TOS ship fully stacked at Hunter's Point for full up testing before being broken back down to its basic four parts to be lifted into orbit and reassembled there? I can buy that. Therefore I can buy the depiction in the Abrams film of a ship being stacked in Iowa and later shown in orbit. How it got there is up to your imagination. I have far, far less problem with that little exercise of imagination than I do with the weird and gross redesign of the ship. I get that again, it is supposed to be from a different timeline. But wow. It's like form follows function in TOS versus form, design, scale can be whatever you want in the Abramsverse. Hell, there's a brewery in engineering.
Can the TOS ship "land"? Of course not. Not because the technology wouldn't permit it, but rather because it isn't designed with that in mind. The technology exists in our reality to build a ship that can power up the Potomac River. But can a supertanker power up the Potomac River?
As for a shipyard in Iowa versus San Francisco, I can accept that the point was to show people in the know that the history was changed. The ship was as different as the other characters.
Was the TOS ship fully stacked at Hunter's Point for full up testing before being broken back down to its basic four parts to be lifted into orbit and reassembled there? I can buy that. Therefore I can buy the depiction in the Abrams film of a ship being stacked in Iowa and later shown in orbit. How it got there is up to your imagination. I have far, far less problem with that little exercise of imagination than I do with the weird and gross redesign of the ship. I get that again, it is supposed to be from a different timeline. But wow. It's like form follows function in TOS versus form, design, scale can be whatever you want in the Abramsverse. Hell, there's a brewery in engineering.
Can the TOS ship "land"? Of course not. Not because the technology wouldn't permit it, but rather because it isn't designed with that in mind. The technology exists in our reality to build a ship that can power up the Potomac River. But can a supertanker power up the Potomac River?
Last edited:
I recall seeing images of the Enterprise "landed" in an old Gold Key comic. It wasn't really on the ground, just using some kind of anti-gravity to float a few tens of yards above the ground. I kind of liked it, but OTOH, it really felt more appropriate for Star Wars.
--Alex
--Alex
This is the pic you're thinking of, I suspect
http://images.sequart.org/images/St...op_Secret_Issue_02-e1365942354568-660x308.jpg
http://images.sequart.org/images/St...op_Secret_Issue_02-e1365942354568-660x308.jpg
Ah! Good old Captain Kurt, the forgotten captain of the Enterprise. I wonder if that image is where the idea came from for the Captain's Yacht in later shows?
Maybe. Though my memory of it is actually from a different angle and in a more natural setting, like a valley or something. It's entirely possible I'm remembering wrong, or else maybe it was a maneuver that was not uncommon in the Gold Key universe.
--Alex
