• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

The took "Constructed at San Francisco Fleet Yards" too literally?

K

Kurgan

Fleet Captain
Fleet Captain
In the trailer, the Enterprise "appears" to be being constructed ON earth, and even out in the open.I really can't wait to see how they intend on explaining that away.Sure, the Enterprise WAS constructed at the San Fran ffleet Yards, but even Archer's Enterprise was constructed in orbit.Were they ever to build anything of the Enterprise's design totally under Earth gravity it would collapse undr it's own weight.I'm seriously hoping that the trailer is just misleading us and that the ship is built in San Fran orbital fleet yards that might stay in orbit directly over San Francisco.Trying to get us to believe a Constitution class starship can be built on Earth,under Earth Gravity is pushing things beyond believability.

Earth orbital(San Francisco) fleet yards most likely,Utopia Plaitia(Mars Gravity makes it somewhat plausible),Antares ship yards(not in existence at TOS time).
 
If the hull could not sustain the stresses of 1G, how would it be able to withstand the stress of internal gravity at 1G, or how would it stay together during any form of acceleration. Just because there are SIFs doesn't mean that the hull is tissue paper thin. Further, just because you see the saucer on the planet doesn't mean the two halves of the ship are together on the surface.
 
Earth orbital(San Francisco) fleet yards most likely,Utopia Plaitia(Mars Gravity makes it somewhat plausible),Antares ship yards(not in existence at TOS time).
Click to expand...

Ok back that up, since the dedication plate disagrees with that assertion. If they meant to say "Sanfran Orbital Shipyards" - there's zero reason that plate doesn't then state this... unless whomever made the dedication plate was getting payed by the word count or something.

Sharr
 
I remember reading somewhere, might have been one of the Okuda's text commentaries on one of the DVDs that the San Fransisco Shipyards are supposed to be in Earth orbit. Specifically, directly above San Fransisco, hence the name.
 
The Wormhole said:
I remember reading somewhere, might have been one of the Okuda's text commentaries on one of the DVDs that the San Fransisco Shipyards are supposed to be in Earth orbit. Specifically, directly above San Fransisco, hence the name.
Click to expand...


Then why doesn't it say that on the dedication plate? You do know the San Fransisco Shipyards are real? We have no reason to think that the dedication doesn't mean those navy yards aside from Fanon assumptions.

Sharr
 
I'm just amazed that some people get worked up about this. I just can't bring myself to care where the hell it was built.
 
Michael Okuda's textual commentaries are not canon!

The fans who deride the trailer as non-canon and use non-canon resources to support their arguments are incredibly irritating to me.
 
I think it's really the fans who are taking this thing too literally..

The trailer was meant to be a metaphor.

And even if it isn't, so what?

Why would it be such a horrible thing to have E built (even partially) on Earth??

Why are people getting their panties in such a tight bunch over this?
 
Sharr Khan said:
Then why doesn't it say that on the dedication plate? You do know the San Fransisco Shipyards are real? We have no reason to think that the dedication doesn't mean those navy yards aside from Fanon assumptions.
Click to expand...

Well, that and Gene Roddenberry's reference to the (IIRC) "old San Francisco orbital yards" in his novelization of ST:TMP.

TGT
 
number6 said:
Why are people getting their panties in such a tight bunch over this?
Click to expand...

I don't recall so much as a ripple when "A Flag Full of Stars", published in April 1991, postulated the NCC-1701's saucer being revamped on Earth in time for the action of ST:TMP.

Nor a fuss when USS Voyager was shown landing on planets in VOY.
 
Wowbagger said:
Michael Okuda's textual commentaries are not canon!

The fans who deride the trailer as non-canon and use non-canon resources to support their arguments are incredibly irritating to me.
Click to expand...

People who get up in arms because their own personal interpretation doesn't get shown on screen annoy the heck out of me.


It's funny. Alot of Trekkies I know hate organized religion, yet they get as fanatical as any of us "bible thumping fools" (that includes me!) when it comes to canon and interpretation.



That said, back on the subject: We don't know how much of the NX-01 was built in orbit and how much was built on the ground and launched up for assembly. Also keep in mind the NCC-1701 is a bigger ship and the required orbital yards might not have been built.

This movie is not about sticking to canon: we're making new canon here folks! We're boldly going where no-one has gone before and defining a new chapter.

If it doesn't fit with your "personal canon" either make it work somehow (use that imagination you have!) or ignore it. But honestly, these "OMG THATS NOT HOW I SEE THINGS I'M BOYCOTTING THE MOVIE THEY RAPED MY MEMORY AND CAME UP WITH SOMETHING PAINFULLY WRONG AND BAD" posts are getting tiresome.
 
Therin of Andor said:
number6 said:
Why are people getting their panties in such a tight bunch over this?
Click to expand...

I don't recall so much as a ripple when "A Flag Full of Stars", published in April 1991, postulated the NCC-1701's saucer being revamped on Earth in time for the action of ST:TMP.

Nor a fuss when USS Voyager was shown landing on planets in VOY.
Click to expand...

That's because half the "fans" don't consider the books to be "canon" and the other half refuse to aknowledge VOY's existance!!

;)
 
I think too many people are make too much of a big deal about this. It's a trailer to a movie! The footage was made specially for the trailer itself, not even for the movie! We might not even see the trailer footage in the movie itself! I think this is being turned into too big of a deal when it's nothing at all!

And if it turns out that this is what the filmmakers intend as the history of the construction of the Enterprise, it's because that is what their vision is, not necessarily that of any of the fans. Fans are going to find that the way they imagined things to be are not necessarily how TPTB imagine things. And so whoever has creative control at the time is going to end up being the ones whose vision ends up on the screen. We just have to accept that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top