No, you're not the only one who is scared by this trailer!

[StoonGuy]

Yeah, I guess I am being sarcastic. My point was, that the second scene would have to be re-written to put the Enterprise in construction in outer space, which is the only place you could build a ship like it, if you wanted to make the scene remotely believable (and not totally stupid).

Once again, your whole initial thing was about Star Trek being believable within the context of the rules it's already established.

So, why is this scene stupid? Does the Federation, a civilization that does all kinds of impossible shit, strike you as a bunch of people who couldn't put a starship in orbit? Or am I missing your point?

It only makes sense to build it in orbit. The reason is exactly why the International Space Station was assembled in orbit. You can't do it on the ground and then transport it up there. It would be too big, and too expensive. The Enterprise has no system or power source that can get it down to or off of a planet surface. From a creative point of view, the transporter was created because they didn't want to show the ship landing and taking off all the time, and it's eventual design supported that. It isn't aerodynamic, has no lift surfaces...

Wait!! Maybe they can just beam the whole starship into orbit!! Yeah... that's it! Bones: "But that's crazy!" Kirk: "You've got a better idea? Now's the time!"

The USS Gigantic - Federation tug ship...

 

[trekkerguy]

Yeah, I guess I am being sarcastic. My point was, that the second scene would have to be re-written to put the Enterprise in construction in outer space, which is the only place you could build a ship like it, if you wanted to make the scene remotely believable (and not totally stupid).

Once again, your whole initial thing was about Star Trek being believable within the context of the rules it's already established.

So, why is this scene stupid? Does the Federation, a civilization that does all kinds of impossible shit, strike you as a bunch of people who couldn't put a starship in orbit? Or am I missing your point?

It only makes sense to build it in orbit. The reason is exactly why the International Space Station was assembled in orbit. You can't do it on the ground and then transport it up there. It would be too big, and too expensive. The Enterprise has no system or power source that can get it down to or off of a planet surface. From a creative point of view, the transporter was created because they didn't want to show the ship landing and taking off all the time, and it's eventual design supported that. It isn't aerodynamic, has no lift surfaces...

Wait!! Maybe they can just beam the whole starship into orbit!! Yeah... that's it! Bones: "But that's crazy!" Kirk: "You've got a better idea? Now's the time!"

The USS Gigantic - Federation tug ship...

With all the shields and fields Trek can make up... they have to worry about aerodynamics? And they can't lift that ship off using the thrusters it has? I dunno dude, I read the entire Trek Technical manual and those things are pretty fuckin powerful ships, I think it's entirely believable. Also this is supposed to be represented as a much more structurely sound and powerful ship, showing it built on the surface and lifting off would be a great way of showing just how massive and capable ships these are without the fanboy-constraints of the past.

 

[ancient]

Yeah, I guess I am being sarcastic. My point was, that the second scene would have to be re-written to put the Enterprise in construction in outer space, which is the only place you could build a ship like it, if you wanted to make the scene remotely believable (and not totally stupid).

Once again, your whole initial thing was about Star Trek being believable within the context of the rules it's already established.

So, why is this scene stupid? Does the Federation, a civilization that does all kinds of impossible shit, strike you as a bunch of people who couldn't put a starship in orbit? Or am I missing your point?

It only makes sense to build it in orbit.

Ah yes. This nonsense again. It's blatently wrong, of course.

The reason is exactly why the International Space Station was assembled in orbit.

Oh yeah I remember when Starfleet built that.

You can't do it on the ground and then transport it up there. It would be too big, and too expensive.

Wrong.

The Enterprise has no system or power source that can get it down to or off of a planet surface.

I must have missed the fan-fic that established that.

From a creative point of view, the transporter was created because they didn't want to show the ship landing and taking off all the time, and it's eventual design supported that. It isn't aerodynamic, has no lift surfaces...

Which is probably why it is on a scaffold.

This kind of ranting never comes from someone willing to actually just treat Trek as entertainment. Which is all it is, and nothing more. Sorry, but your ability to mash the keyboard until a really long, jumbled bunch of crap appears up here doesn't impress me.

 

[JoeZhang]

The thing that always tickles me about all this -

Energy required to travel thousands of time faster than light - no problem!

Energy required to lift a object from earth to space - TOO MUCH!

 

[EnderAKH]

It only makes sense to build it in orbit. The reason is exactly why the International Space Station was assembled in orbit. You can't do it on the ground and then transport it up there. It would be too big, and too expensive. The Enterprise has no system or power source that can get it down to or off of a planet surface. From a creative point of view, the transporter was created because they didn't want to show the ship landing and taking off all the time, and it's eventual design supported that. It isn't aerodynamic, has no lift surfaces...

Wait!! Maybe they can just beam the whole starship into orbit!! Yeah... that's it! Bones: "But that's crazy!" Kirk: "You've got a better idea? Now's the time!"

The USS Gigantic - Federation tug ship...

I'm sorry, but as much as I HATED the show, if we're talking about rules, doesn't the Voyager take off and land? And they didn't make it seem like it was the only ship capable of doing so.

Yes, the ISS was constructed in space... NOW. But 250 years from now, what with warp technology, anti-gravity technology, etc., it isn't too far-fetched to think that they could get a ship into orbit from the ground when we've ALREADY SEEN THEM DO IT.

 

[ancient]

The thing that always tickles me about all this -

Energy required to travel thousands of time faster than light - no problem!

Energy required to lift a object from earth to space - TOO MUCH!

And TOO DANGEROUS!

Yep, it blows the whole "I want technical validity" excuse right out of the water and shows what is really going on: "I want what I WANT and they're stupid for not giving it to meeeee!"

 

[StoonGuy]

I hate to say this, but maybe we just need to let go of TOS. Are you really expecting a TOS movie using cardboard sets, Rubber monsters, cocker spaniels in costumes and styrofoam rocks and "tech" that looks like it's from the 1965 Radio Shack catalog?

The problem with TOS is that there is absolutely unbelievable.

Ooooooh... blasphemy!

-Shawn

Again, you're missing the point. Star Trek has always evolved to reflect the improved version of the future that our own advances have provided us with. For example, its funny how a futuristic clock on TOS was numbers spinning past on a wheel, like a 70's clock radio.

TOS is hilarious now, but it certainly wasn't back in the 1960's. It was totally cool and totally futuristic. Now we look back on it and laugh. But there were SOME things about it which became established in the Star Trek history, and don't need to be changed to create a great compelling story.

TNG had flat screen computers! Flat screens! Did they really think in the 90's that we would have flat screen everythings everywhere by 2003? I don't know but I suspect not.

Our vision of the future is always restricted by our knowledge of the present.

I don't really care that much about TOS. I care about someone in 2008 making something that suddenly erases 40 years of established 'history', because they arrogantly (I think) think they know better.

You want to make a movie about some hip new Star Trek cadets setting out on their life's adventure? Fine. But if you are going to name them Kirk and Spock et. all. you damn well have to be very careful with the already established history for the characters. The books and all the crap on the internet muddy up the waters enough already, but when you are given the reigns of a major motion picture, you HAVE to do your homework!

Otherwise, do a really new Star Trek movie, with new characters, with different names, and leave the established stuff alone. Then I would be totally excited to see this movie, even based on this bad-action movie trailer. "Star Trek made to 2008 standards, that could be interesting..."

I don't want to go back to the 60's. Lot's of people have posted replys about why it was SOOO bad, and it was But real fans, (not geekoid nut cases who can quote all of the dumb episodes that I never could) love what's good about it and forgive what's bad. And there is 40 years of GOOD history built up. You don't screw with that!

And it was established, back in 1968, that the Enterprise NEVER lands on a planet, and was assembled in space. It is a fundamental tenant of Star Trek. It also makes sense. It's reasonable. Not running into Nazis, Romans or other bad ideas that poor writers come up with, never was. If you don't believe what I am saying check out "The Making of Star Trek" by Stephen Whitfield which was written at the time of the shows production, not twenty years later based on people's bad memory.

 

[Augustus]

I love Star Trek, And if this new one is entertaining and meaningful in some way, I think I can easily overlook any insignificant details like where the Enterprise was built.

 

[Admiral_Young]

I didn't read the initial post but didn't need to from reading what the topic of the thread was going to be about. Honestly the trailer put to rest some of the major concerns I had about the movie, I understood that this was going to be a highly different take on Star Trek and some changes and alterations to canon were going to be neccessary to undertake. What I'm most concerned about is not the canon issue that will be debated until the end of time amongst fans but if this is going to be a GOOD movie. We need this to be a GOOD movie and the trailer looks like it. If it is a departure from tradtional trek then so be it. As our friend Spock would say I think this take is fascinating and like many others on the board I haven't been this excited about Star Trek since First Contact, that was twelve years ago.

 

[StoonGuy]

It only makes sense to build it in orbit. The reason is exactly why the International Space Station was assembled in orbit. You can't do it on the ground and then transport it up there. It would be too big, and too expensive. The Enterprise has no system or power source that can get it down to or off of a planet surface. From a creative point of view, the transporter was created because they didn't want to show the ship landing and taking off all the time, and it's eventual design supported that. It isn't aerodynamic, has no lift surfaces...

Wait!! Maybe they can just beam the whole starship into orbit!! Yeah... that's it! Bones: "But that's crazy!" Kirk: "You've got a better idea? Now's the time!"

The USS Gigantic - Federation tug ship...

I'm sorry, but as much as I HATED the show, if we're talking about rules, doesn't the Voyager take off and land? And they didn't make it seem like it was the only ship capable of doing so.

Yes, the ISS was constructed in space... NOW. But 250 years from now, what with warp technology, anti-gravity technology, etc., it isn't too far-fetched to think that they could get a ship into orbit from the ground when we've ALREADY SEEN THEM DO IT.

Well, if you're talking about rules, check the background info. Voyager is a MUCH smaller ship and was designed to be able to land on a planet, which at the time was something new to Star Fleet. So, it has already been established that at the time of the first Enterprise, they couldn't do that, but now along comes JJ Abrams, and he is arrogant enough to think that he can re-write Star Trek. Oh joy....

 

[DeafPoet]

And it was established, back in 1968, that the Enterprise NEVER lands on a planet, and was assembled in space. It is a fundamental tenant of Star Trek.

If you think this is a fundamental tenet of Trek I think I'm beginning to understand where our difference of opinion lies.

 

[StoonGuy]

The thing that always tickles me about all this -

Energy required to travel thousands of time faster than light - no problem!

Energy required to lift a object from earth to space - TOO MUCH!

Man, you people are sad. You argue points and miss the issue. It IS science fiction, or fantasy, or whatever. I don't care what the rules are, or even if they all make sense. I care whether or not they get followed, because if they don't there is no suspension of disbelief. And the Star Trek universe has more established rules than any other. So follow them, or don't call it Star Trek. Why is this so hard for some people to grasp?

And when the movie tanks, the arrogant airheads who argue details and miss the points will be scratching their heads and not understanding why no one wants to see the film. Sigh...

I have to get off of here now. I am growing just as nasty and impatient as some of you regulars...

 

[God Magnus]

The trailer doesn't scare me at all. It makes me happy to be a Trek fan again, something several seasons of Voyager, Enterprise and the last two Trek movies failed to do. I'm inspired by JJ's idea of "making optimism cool again" and I look forward to seeing my beloved classic characters on screen again in a new adventure.

 

[EnderAKH]

Man, you people are sad. You argue points and miss the issue. It IS science fiction, or fantasy, or whatever. I don't care what the rules are, or even if they all make sense. I care whether or not they get followed, because if they don't there is no suspension of disbelief. And the Star Trek universe has more established rules than any other. So follow them, or don't call it Star Trek. Why is this so hard for some people to grasp?

And when the movie tanks, the arrogant airheads who argue details and miss the points will be scratching their heads and not understanding why no one wants to see the film. Sigh...

I have to get off of here now. I am growing just as nasty and impatient as some of you regulars...

And yet, according to most polls taken here amongst fans, 80% are generally in favor, 20% aren't. Do you like the trailer? 65% thought it was great, 15% thought it was good. Are you looking forward to the movie? 80% Yes, 20% No. So it would seem that most fans don't care, so I would bet the the average non-fan movie goer who couldn't give a rats ass about Trek continuity won't care either.

 

[ancient]

I hate to say this, but maybe we just need to let go of TOS. Are you really expecting a TOS movie using cardboard sets, Rubber monsters, cocker spaniels in costumes and styrofoam rocks and "tech" that looks like it's from the 1965 Radio Shack catalog?

The problem with TOS is that there is absolutely unbelievable.

Ooooooh... blasphemy!

-Shawn

Again, you're missing the point.

Pretty easy since you post like a rambling thesis on self-contradiction.

Star Trek has always evolved to reflect the improved version of the future that our own advances have provided us with. For example, its funny how a futuristic clock on TOS was numbers spinning past on a wheel, like a 70's clock radio.

...And what? What does this have to do with the Trek Trailer?

TOS is hilarious now, but it certainly wasn't back in the 1960's. It was totally cool and totally futuristic. Now we look back on it and laugh.

...Ok then...

But there were SOME things about it which became established in the Star Trek history, and don't need to be changed to create a great compelling story.

Yeah, but they aren't really changing anything too important, just a lot of cosmetic stuff, and frankly, it looks sweet.

TNG had flat screen computers! Flat screens! Did they really think in the 90's that we would have flat screen everythings everywhere by 2003? I don't know but I suspect not.

Our vision of the future is always restricted by our knowledge of the present.

Random insert of paragraphs that don't seem to have a point. This is why I have trouble reading your posts. They go like this:

Random Thought,
Random Thought,
Random Thought,
Random Thought,
Random Thought,
Random Thought,
Random Thought,
Random Thought,
Random Thought,
This movie WILL SUCK!

I don't really care that much about TOS. I care about someone in 2008 making something that suddenly erases 40 years of established 'history', because they arrogantly (I think) think they know better.

Whuh? That seems blatently contradictory.

You want to make a movie about some hip new Star Trek cadets setting out on their life's adventure? Fine. But if you are going to name them Kirk and Spock et. all. you damn well have to be very careful with the already established history for the characters. The books and all the crap on the internet muddy up the waters enough already, but when you are given the reigns of a major motion picture, you HAVE to do your homework!

And they clearly have, so what is the problem?

Otherwise, do a really new Star Trek movie, with new characters, with different names, and leave the established stuff alone. Then I would be totally excited to see this movie, even based on this bad-action movie trailer.

All the trek trailors have pushed the action. Except STV, which pushed the komedy.

"Star Trek made to 2008 standards, that could be interesting..."

What, are you quoting someone here or something?

I don't want to go back to the 60's. Lot's of people have posted replys about why it was SOOO bad, and it was But real fans, (not geekoid nut cases who can quote all of the dumb episodes that I never could) love what's good about it and forgive what's bad. And there is 40 years of GOOD history built up. You don't screw with that!

They aren't. They're doing something fresh for once.

And it was established, back in 1968, that the Enterprise NEVER lands on a planet, and was assembled in space. It is a fundamental tenant of Star Trek.

So fundamental that it's not even canon.

It also makes sense. It's reasonable.

Maybe. So is building it on the ground. Either way is good, no big deal, really.

Not running into Nazis, Romans or other bad ideas that poor writers come up with, never was. If you don't believe what I am saying check out "The Making of Star Trek" by Stephen Whitfield which was written at the time of the shows production, not twenty years later based on people's bad memory.

Ah, I see. "Keep the parts I like, throw away the parts I don't like." Nice.

 

[ancient]

The thing that always tickles me about all this -

Energy required to travel thousands of time faster than light - no problem!

Energy required to lift a object from earth to space - TOO MUCH!

Man, you people are sad. You argue points and miss the issue. It IS science fiction, or fantasy, or whatever. I don't care what the rules are, or even if they all make sense. I care whether or not they get followed, because if they don't there is no suspension of disbelief.

This is the BIGGEST load of nonsensical bullshit I've read in a long time. Congradulations, sir! The only thing this movie must be consistent with is itself in order to allow suspension of disbelief. What you're really saying is that the movie must ahere to your personal little trekkie bible or else you will not be able to suspend your disbelief.

And the Star Trek universe has more established rules than any other. So follow them, or don't call it Star Trek. Why is this so hard for some people to grasp?

It sounds like you want the movie to follow your rules.

And when the movie tanks, the arrogant airheads who argue details and miss the points will be scratching their heads and not understanding why no one wants to see the film. Sigh...

Yeah, yeah it'll tank because...why again? It doen't follow your rules? Whatever, no one cares.

I have to get off of here now. I am growing just as nasty and impatient as some of you regulars...

You're the one making us impatient, because your crap is both stinky and old.

 

[Amaris]

I haven't read this whole thread, as I don't need a migraine, but in regards to a starship surviving in earth's atmosphere, I cite this:

"Tomorrow is Yesterday", TOS

J.

 

[Canadave]

It only makes sense to build it in orbit. The reason is exactly why the International Space Station was assembled in orbit. You can't do it on the ground and then transport it up there. It would be too big, and too expensive. The Enterprise has no system or power source that can get it down to or off of a planet surface. From a creative point of view, the transporter was created because they didn't want to show the ship landing and taking off all the time, and it's eventual design supported that. It isn't aerodynamic, has no lift surfaces...

Wait!! Maybe they can just beam the whole starship into orbit!! Yeah... that's it! Bones: "But that's crazy!" Kirk: "You've got a better idea? Now's the time!"

The USS Gigantic - Federation tug ship...

I'm sorry, but as much as I HATED the show, if we're talking about rules, doesn't the Voyager take off and land? And they didn't make it seem like it was the only ship capable of doing so.

Yes, the ISS was constructed in space... NOW. But 250 years from now, what with warp technology, anti-gravity technology, etc., it isn't too far-fetched to think that they could get a ship into orbit from the ground when we've ALREADY SEEN THEM DO IT.

Well, if you're talking about rules, check the background info. Voyager is a MUCH smaller ship and was designed to be able to land on a planet, which at the time was something new to Star Fleet. So, it has already been established that at the time of the first Enterprise, they couldn't do that, but now along comes JJ Abrams, and he is arrogant enough to think that he can re-write Star Trek. Oh joy....

Nope. The Intrepid-class is about 350 metres long and 15 decks thick. The original Constitution was about 290 metres, and if you eliminate the neck, probably about as thick. So the Connie is probably the same size or smaller than the Intrepid.

 

[CaptainHawk1]

I hate to say this, but maybe we just need to let go of TOS. Are you really expecting a TOS movie using cardboard sets, Rubber monsters, cocker spaniels in costumes and styrofoam rocks and "tech" that looks like it's from the 1965 Radio Shack catalog?

The problem with TOS is that there is absolutely unbelievable.

Ooooooh... blasphemy!

-Shawn

Again, you're missing the point. Star Trek has always evolved to reflect the improved version of the future that our own advances have provided us with. For example, its funny how a futuristic clock on TOS was numbers spinning past on a wheel, like a 70's clock radio.

You're going to quote me again from page 1 instead of addressing how everyone else has invalidated your bullshit?

TOS is hilarious now, but it certainly wasn't back in the 1960's. It was totally cool and totally futuristic. Now we look back on it and laugh. But there were SOME things about it which became established in the Star Trek history, and don't need to be changed to create a great compelling story.

It was hilarious then and that's part of the problem. You seem very young and I say this because your arguments are not only incoherent, but they aren't very well researched either. You also have a tendency to ignore people who counter your arguments and then complain that there's no room for debate. I find you annoying.

TNG had flat screen computers! Flat screens! Did they really think in the 90's that we would have flat screen everythings everywhere by 2003? I don't know but I suspect not.

The concept for flat panel displays have been around since 1958
http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2006/04/09/flat-screen-tv-in-1958/

Our vision of the future is always restricted by our knowledge of the present.

Sure it is... tell that to daVinci.

I don't really care that much about TOS. I care about someone in 2008 making something that suddenly erases 40 years of established 'history', because they arrogantly (I think) think they know better.

And you've of course seen the film, right?

You want to make a movie about some hip new Star Trek cadets setting out on their life's adventure? Fine. But if you are going to name them Kirk and Spock et. all. you damn well have to be very careful with the already established history for the characters. The books and all the crap on the internet muddy up the waters enough already, but when you are given the reigns of a major motion picture, you HAVE to do your homework!

And of course despite that the writers and producers have said that they have and it will coincide with canon, that's not enough for you and your crystal ball.

Otherwise, do a really new Star Trek movie, with new characters, with different names, and leave the established stuff alone. Then I would be totally excited to see this movie, even based on this bad-action movie trailer. "Star Trek made to 2008 standards, that could be interesting..."

I don't want to go back to the 60's. Lot's of people have posted replys about why it was SOOO bad, and it was But real fans, (not geekoid nut cases who can quote all of the dumb episodes that I never could) love what's good about it and forgive what's bad. And there is 40 years of GOOD history built up. You don't screw with that!

And there's part of your problem. You're giving 79 episodes of TOS more credence than the other 621. TOS is a very minor part of Trek and it's been violated before by Roddenberry himself and by TOS itself. Regardless, you have no idea what the plan is. This movie needs to be an action movie geared toward a general audience, in orderr to make money not a bunch of Trek geeks.

And this nonsense about the regular audience taking their cues for how good a Trek movie is based on what the fans say... that is the dumbest thing that you've said yet.

Trek fans make up a scant 2% of the Trek viewing audience... Our opinion doesn't mean shit.

And it was established, back in 1968, that the Enterprise NEVER lands on a planet, and was assembled in space. It is a fundamental tenant of Star Trek.

When? Name the episode because you're completely full of crap. Just because it didn't they never said it couldn't. In fact, during the entire episode of Tomorrow is Yesterday The Enterprise is flying all across N. America and eventually went back into space so explain to me why it couldn't achieve escape velocity when starting from the ground. There are only two classes that they've been real specific about travelling within a planet's atmosphere: the Galaxy Class and the Defiant Class. That's it.

It also makes sense. It's reasonable.

Not getting it.

-Shawn

 

[JuanBolio]

It only makes sense to build it in orbit. The reason is exactly why the International Space Station was assembled in orbit. You can't do it on the ground and then transport it up there. It would be too big, and too expensive. The Enterprise has no system or power source that can get it down to or off of a planet surface. From a creative point of view, the transporter was created because they didn't want to show the ship landing and taking off all the time, and it's eventual design supported that. It isn't aerodynamic, has no lift surfaces...

The ISS was not built in space - it was built on the ground in pieces and shipped into and assembled in space. The Enterprise doesn't NEED aerodynamics or lift surfaces. The assembly seen in the trailer is (presumably) part of an integrated systems test before its broken down into sections, shipped into orbit with anti-gravity tugs, and assembled and finalized.

Do you know how hard and dangerous it would be to try to build it in space from the keel up? You'd need everyone involved with building it to be masters at zero-G construction in the high-radiation airless void of space. If you build it on the ground you have a much larger and less expensive labor pool to work with, not to mention the fact that its vastly safer. Even Roddenberry said the sections were built on the ground and assembled in space. Its really not that hard to reconcile.