I'd settle for people to actually look up the dozen or so threads discussing the exact same topic instead of re-hashing the exact same arguments ad naseum.
Little late to the party, this topic is.
The took "Constructed at San Francisco Fleet Yards" too literally?
- Thread starter Kurgan
- Start date
I'd settle for people to actually look up the dozen or so threads discussing the exact same topic instead of re-hashing the exact same arguments ad naseum.
Little late to the party, this topic is.
There was first contact long with the Romulans long before "Balance of Terror" that little thing known as the Earth-Romulan War.
As for the Ferengi, ah I think Picard encountered them before we saw them as well... but what's this got to do with if "The ST team is messing up canon"? How can we even know that at this point having not seen the movie and all?
Saying that I'm sure we're going to get a new slate to work with well branching off from the original source.
Sharr
What am I missing here? Everyone keeps talking about "San Francisco Fleet Yards" and TMP, but isn't this movie supposed to be about TOS??? The plaque on the bridge of the NCC-1701 reads: USS ENTERPRISE, STARSHIP CLASS, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. It says and implies nothing about the ship being built in space. That being said, even if the plaque mentioned something about space, this is just a teaser. The whole thing is symbolic, which is why the tag line is "Under Construction." It's not all that deep, so what's the big deal??
^ I agree, who the fuck cares. But if you want to get particular it was built on the ground in SFO as separate components then shot into space and fitted together. The preview shows it in practically in one piece on the ground but you dont here me bitching about that. If you want to go off on a tangent, then hell build it on the ground and beam the entire superstructure into space. Or have starfleet tugs use tractor beams and pull the spaceframe into orbit. Or build it completely and then power it up and have it take off. We have seen the Enterprise in the atmosphere before in TOS. Some how it flys without wings. I dont know I just think its something weird to have a problem with.
This is the best response I've read yet! My ex was a huge Trekkie
to the point of making anyone who enjoyed the show/movies (like me) miserable. I've had the pleasure of knowing several cast members... even had a loooooong discussion of what was wrong with ST5 with George Takei
... he grilled me a lot 
about what I thought was wrong with that movie 
& the direction they SHOULD be going with the franchise 
... but arguing about trivial stuff just irritates me 
.
I think you make a good point... the largest obstacle to making a movie/series is that so much has been added to the ST legend/"canon". "Enterprise" failed because it was trapped by everything that went on in previous series... we all know what a Klingon is supposed to look like in both Kirk's time AND Picard's time...(as I recall, no one cared that in the movie they looked different than the series... we all just said... WOW the Klingons look KOOL!) so they had to try to squeeze in an explanation instead of telling a good story. No matter where they go with this in the new movie... I will enjoy having Trek back in this world... alive & hopefully well.
Bullshit.
By that logic, Star Trek XI will be far more "trapped" than any Star Trek that has ever been made.
Why do I just know that it will be 100 times better than "Enterprise"?
I also disagree with the notion that Enterprise failed because it was weighed down with canon. There was plenty of potential for an interesting, compelling series about the birth of the Federation. They could have shown us a Earth recovering from the after effects of a brutal, devastating world war, taking their first tentative steps into interstellar space exploration and after struggles and set backs becoming one of the most prominent and key political players in interstellar politics, uniting the bickering Vulcans, Andorians and Tellarites under the same banner, and just in time for the fledging United Federation of Planets to face their first great challenge, a war with the mysterious Romulan race which whom no one has ever seen? This could have been an AWESOME series, but instead we got a mediocre one that rarely lived up to this rich premise. Much in the same way I feel about Voyager.
Thanks. It's my favorite. Everything I need to know in life I learned from TNG.
A couple of million hardcore Trekkies would have loved that...notably, a couple of million viewers hung on to "Enterprise" until pretty near the end. So that's a wash.
Now, a series about a spaceship exploring all over the place, populated by a bunch of entertaining characters that people wanted to see every week - that would have been worthwhile and successful (unless it were on FOX). Unfortunately, "Enterprise" never quite managed to be that for very long, either.
Or on NBC in the late sixties.
Last edited:
You know, they could probably just get Chuck Norris to push it out of the way.
All fair points. I don't disagree with you.
The main problem in this fight, I have found, is that there are so many good reasons why the anti-trailer crowd is wrong that we tend to trip over ourselves expressing them in their full multiplicity.
Starship Polaris, you changed your avatar and so I didn't recognize you. Never do that again.
I don't see why the people who don't care about this, feel the need to rag on those who do care. It's a hobby. We like it, and this is a great venue for people who do care, to get together. If you don't care, leave us alone. Because otherwise, you're pretty much saying that our hobby is crap. I mean really, why are you here?!
As for the dedication plaque stating San Fran, Cal... There is no reason why it couldn't have been built on Earth. It's almost 300 years in the future- they manipulate massive amounts of energy- they have remarkable inertial dampening systems and teleportation! I am comfortable with adhering to the plaque saying it was built on Earth. We may not have seen it built on Earth on any show, but the possibility does not seem so out of touch with what we do see in Star Trek.
They probably used a combination of know technologies such as Tractor and Repulsion beams, Thrusters, and Anti-gravity devices. The weight of the sections being built are probably immediately enforced with structural integrity fields, assuming they need it. The materials they use may have enough strength, coupled with construction techniques, to allow the structure to withstand the forces applied on it until take off, when the structural integrity field would be initiated...
Canon? I don't know. The plaque said what it said. Why read any more into it then we have too? We can make up what we like to fill in the blanks. It's all for fun!
As for the dedication plaque stating San Fran, Cal... There is no reason why it couldn't have been built on Earth. It's almost 300 years in the future- they manipulate massive amounts of energy- they have remarkable inertial dampening systems and teleportation! I am comfortable with adhering to the plaque saying it was built on Earth. We may not have seen it built on Earth on any show, but the possibility does not seem so out of touch with what we do see in Star Trek.
They probably used a combination of know technologies such as Tractor and Repulsion beams, Thrusters, and Anti-gravity devices. The weight of the sections being built are probably immediately enforced with structural integrity fields, assuming they need it. The materials they use may have enough strength, coupled with construction techniques, to allow the structure to withstand the forces applied on it until take off, when the structural integrity field would be initiated...
Canon? I don't know. The plaque said what it said. Why read any more into it then we have too? We can make up what we like to fill in the blanks. It's all for fun!
Speaking of ragging and of caring/not caring about details: the name of the city is San Francisco, as are the yards bearing the same name (wherever they may be located,) and it says so on the dedication plaque. "San Fran" is bad enough, and will get you a cringe from the people who live there, at the very least. It could have been worse, though; you could have committed the unforgivable offense of "Frisco", for which there has not yet been invented an adequately fiendish penalty.
Just sayin'.
If they did any of these things, I doubt we'll hear about them in Star Trek XI. This sounds exactly like all of the stuff that Abrams is trying to get away from. If nothing else, the teaser trailer seems to be an indication that he wants the audience to believe that "this could really happen."
The explanations you give are par for the course if we are talking about "your father's Trek." I suspect we are in for something entirely different.
Well no, you're wrong. In "my father's Trek", AKA TOS- we never had technological explanations like that. All the techno-babble didn't really start until TNG. The scripts rarely went into detailed explaination about anything- that's why there is SO much speculation about TOS tech.
And it doesn't really matter if JJ explains these things in the movie- it's not what the movie, or this thread is about. It's people speculating about if the ship built in San Fran, Cal, (sorry, don't feel like spelling it out, Mod- just sayin'
). Most of the shit in our little Star Trek universe is built on our speculation and interpretation of what we see. M'Sharak said:
M'Sharak, you miss the part where it says California... While not odd for a Star Base to be named after a city or state, it would be odd for a construction starbase to be named after the city AND state. You're reading too much into the dedication plaque- which is funny because the people who do read too much into Star Trek, are getting ragged on for doing JUST that!
How does it take away from the movie or Star Trek because some people actually do care about it? Half of these threads are about the subject, and the other half are about people who say they don't care and piss on the people who do.
Last edited: