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

[M'Sharak]

[...]
(sorry, don't feel like spelling it out, Mod- just sayin').
[...]

[the name of the city is San Francisco, as are the yards bearing the same name (wherever they may be located,).

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!

I'm not reading anything into the plaque at all. I was doing no more than pointing up that you were criticizing people for not caring and ragging on those who did, while engaging in the same sort of cavalier treatment of details which you were deploring in others. That's it.

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.

It doesn't take away from anything, and I think that assuming someone doesn't care at all because they don't think the same thing you think is a bit presumptuous. Different people have different opinions and different perceptions of what is important, none of which (in the case of this movie or of Trek in general) are either wrong or right, and no group has ever held a monopoly in the "piss on other people's opinions" department, not even the hardcore TOS crowd. If everyone thought and did everything the same way, would there even have been a point to Star Trek in the first place?

 

[Patrickivan]

Here's where you lost me...

Well no, you're wrong.

I am sorry. I didn't know you were "special". Unfortunately, I do not have the training required to help people such as your self. But I will try.

"You" Means the person being spoken too. That means I am talking to YOU, little guy!

"Are" Indicative of being...

"Wrong" or Mistaken. Incorrect. Not Right.

I made my point, and your response was nothing more then a joke.

 

[Patrickivan]

[...]
(sorry, don't feel like spelling it out, Mod- just sayin').
[...]

[the name of the city is San Francisco, as are the yards bearing the same name (wherever they may be located,).

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!

I'm not reading anything into the plaque at all. I was doing no more than pointing up that you were criticizing people for not caring and ragging on those who did, while engaging in the same sort of cavalier treatment of details which you were deploring in others. That's it.

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.

It doesn't take away from anything, and I think that assuming someone doesn't care at all because they don't think the same thing you think is a bit presumptuous. Different people have different opinions and different perceptions of what is important, none of which (in the case of this movie or of Trek in general) are either wrong or right, and no group has ever held a monopoly in the "piss on other people's opinions" department, not even the hardcore TOS crowd. If everyone thought and did everything the same way, would there even have been a point to Star Trek in the first place?

So you were essentially nit picking... My presumptions were based on comments made. I can't infer any more then what people say. Say what you mean instead of being so vague.

 

[M'Sharak]

So you were essentially nit picking... My presumptions were based on comments made. I can't infer any more then what people say. Say what you mean instead of being so vague.

But where's the fun in that?

Yeah, I was nitpicking -- that sort of thing goes on quite a lot here, you may have noticed -- but it's entirely possible to be a serious fan without taking everything too seriously. Remember, just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean you've got to take it personally; they just hold a different opinion and, in the absence of explicitly-spelled-out and unassailable evidence one way or the other, everyone's allowed to formulate their own, for the sake of the exercise. They're not picking on you; it's part of the fun.

(Oh, and I wouldn't take that Cogley character too seriously, either. He sure doesn't. )

 

[Patrickivan]

So you were essentially nit picking... My presumptions were based on comments made. I can't infer any more then what people say. Say what you mean instead of being so vague.

But where's the fun in that?

Yeah, I was nitpicking -- that sort of thing goes on quite a lot here, you may have noticed -- but it's entirely possible to be a serious fan without taking everything too seriously. Remember, just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean you've got to take it personally; they just hold a different opinion and, in the absence of explicitly-spelled-out and unassailable evidence one way or the other, everyone's allowed to formulate their own, for the sake of the exercise. They're not picking on you; it's part of the fun.

(Oh, and I wouldn't take that Cogley character too seriously, either. He sure doesn't. )

You're right of course... Sometimes something comes off too serious. I am more then guilty of just being flippant, or sarcastic, but coming off as an ass.

Sorry people. I'm cranky today- lost out on a job.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

(Oh, and I wouldn't take that Cogley character too seriously, either. He sure doesn't. )

On the contrary. I am highly offended. I demand warnings for everyone in this thread, including myself. Warnings on the house. On me. Heads will roll. Warnings will fly and heads will roll.

 

[ancient]

They should just build it in Detroit.

Or in Willy Wonka's candy factory, which is in Detroit now. It's canon.

 

[Wowbagger]

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?!

Well, I don't know about everyone else--and I'm not even sure this was directed at me--but I consider it a solemn duty to beat down Trek '09 naysayers in all their forms. I choose to do so mainly by focusing on the canonistas, because I know my canon very, very well and, I find, the people who oppose the new movie on canon grounds (or Enterprise, for that matter), generally know much less about canon than they think they do. It's a form of enforcing orthodoxy, thus keeping the fandom strong and unifed.

You know, like Communist Russia.

 

[StarTrek1701]

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?!

Well, I don't know about everyone else--and I'm not even sure this was directed at me--but I consider it a solemn duty to beat down Trek '09 naysayers in all their forms. I choose to do so mainly by focusing on the canonistas, because I know my canon very, very well and, I find, the people who oppose the new movie on canon grounds (or Enterprise, for that matter), generally know much less about canon than they think they do. It's a form of enforcing orthodoxy, thus keeping the fandom strong and unifed.

You know, like Communist Russia.

Well said.

 

[blaXXer]

[SNIP]
You know, like Communist Russia.

In Soviet Russia, Canon cares about YOU.


'nuff said.

 

[M'Sharak]

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?!

Well, I don't know about everyone else--and I'm not even sure this was directed at me--but I consider it a solemn duty to beat down Trek '09 naysayers in all their forms. I choose to do so mainly by focusing on the canonistas, because I know my canon very, very well and, I find, the people who oppose the new movie on canon grounds (or Enterprise, for that matter), generally know much less about canon than they think they do. It's a form of enforcing orthodoxy, thus keeping the fandom strong and unifed.

You know, like Communist Russia.

Well said.

Okay, okay -- he said he was sorry, already. Open season on Patrickivan is closed.

 

[MIB]

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).

Not really. Gravity manipulation is a well documented technology in the Trek universe and was shown to be perfected by the early 22nd century if not earlier. A planetside shipyard in a null-grav zone would be quite advantageous. Not only would you not have to worry about maintaining structural integrity throughout the entire construction period, you also wouldn't have to deal with all the irritating complications that would arise from having to build in a hard vacume of extreme temperatures and radiation.

 

[ST:RPG]

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.

Righteo! Look how much attention the trailer has given to the movie. Some people call this 'disinformation'. Let's see what wikipedia says..

"Disinformation is a preemptive dissemination of deliberately misleading information announced publicly or leaked by a government, intelligence agency, corporation or other entity to prevent a target audience from realising accurate conclusions. Unlike misinformation, which is also a form of wrong information, disinformation is produced by people who deliberately intend to deceive their audience into believing anything other than truth. Disinformation bears a unique psychological tenacity in that if successful, the victims accept it as fact. Upon later revelation of truth, the affected individuals may be prone to denial, experiencing varying degrees of Cognitive dissonance."

 

[newscaped]

I think it's really the fans who are taking this thing too literally..

There should be room for refinement in Trek

 

[number6]

I think it's really the fans who are taking this thing too literally..

There should be room for refinement in Trek

You must be new here.

 

[StarTrek1701]

I think it's really the fans who are taking this thing too literally..

There should be room for refinement in Trek

You must be new here.

Ya think? Let me get this straight: the hardcore fans are bothered to where the ship was built but not how the story would unfold? And they call themselves true Trek fans? LMAO.

 

[number6]

There should be room for refinement in Trek

You must be new here.

Ya think? Let me get this straight: the hardcore fans are bothered to where the ship was built but not how the story would unfold? And they call themselves true Trek fans? LMAO.

The hardcore fans have all "refused" to go see it.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

"Enterprise" failed because it was trapped by everything that went on in previous series...

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"?

Agreed. This particular canard is quoted almost as frequently as "the original Enterprise design is SOOOO 60s." And it has exactly as much truth behind it.

By this argument, you see... you could NEVER tell a good story set in the real world, because any attempt to tell stories in that place... you know, REALITY, all bogged down with reality and history and all that... would be impossible.

That's really the analogy between "Trek canon" and real history... and the truth of the matter is that there's a hell of a lot less "trek canon" than there is real history.

Yet, somehow, people keep coming up with interesting stories to tell set in the real world, don't they? THEY'RE not bogged down with reality's "canon," are they?

Saying that what hurts, or HELPS, a particular storytelling venture is the BACKGROUND INFORMATION is just ludicrous.

You can tell an absolutely FANTASTIC story without violating a bit of "canon." Or you can tell a totally HORRIBLE story without violating a bit of canon.

You can tell an absolutely fantastic story and violate canon totally... of you can tell an absolutely horrific story while violating canon.

Ultimate, we all ought to care most about the storytelling. The only place that "canon" really comes into play is in the fact that, since so many members of the audience (including every last one of us!) is familiar, to one extent or another, with the "history" of this universe, the "look" and "feel" and so forth of this universe... changing things risks pulling us all out of our suspension of disbelief and therefore risks HARMING the movie.

A fantastic movie may be able to get past that little "down-tick." And a horrible movie won't be saved by virtue of not having that problem.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Well, I don't know about everyone else--and I'm not even sure this was directed at me--but I consider it a solemn duty to beat down Trek '09 naysayers in all their forms. I choose to do so mainly by focusing on the canonistas, because I know my canon very, very well and, I find, the people who oppose the new movie on canon grounds (or Enterprise, for that matter), generally know much less about canon than they think they do. It's a form of enforcing orthodoxy, thus keeping the fandom strong and unifed.

You know, like Communist Russia.

Well said.

Okay, okay -- he said he was sorry, already. Open season on Patrickivan is closed.

 

[M'Sharak]

Damn. It's Elmer Season.