Official Trailer Review & Comments Thread!! [Spoilers, of course]

[ConRefit79]

I think we're going to have to give a little on the established canon. While it makes more sense to construct a huge vessel, like the Enterprise, in orbit, it limits the story. From what has been revealed, Kirk is not in Star Fleet when he sees this Constitution ship. It is very powerful moment to see a rebellious Kirk ride up and see the vessel so close. To see him dreaming of commanding such a vessel. It would be difficult for a civilian to have such a personal moment like that if it was being built in orbit. I know the first time I saw a Space Shuttle up close, it inspired me much more than seeing it in pictures and on film.

 

[Trekker4747]

Remember Generations? Ok, the Enterprise did crash but I reckon if they didn't enter the atmosphere at such a steep angle (prompting Data to shit himself) they would have been able to 'pull up' and get back out of the atmosphere. Now if the enterprise-D could do that, then I am sure a smaller ship can.

Also I seem to recall that the saucer section of the Enterprise refit was fitted with landing struts so that it could land on a planet.

Klingon Birds of Prey landed on a planet.

USS Voyager could land on a planet.

If Trek has covered all of this before then why is it such a big deal now?

Considerible difference betwen just the saucer section and the saucer section with the large, bulky, not quite aerodynamic hulk of the secondary hull attatched.

 

[ConRefit79]

OK, some canon changes are difficult to over come. It would have been better had they not revealed that Romulans and Vulcans are cousins. You can see Sulu and Kirk fighting Romulans on a platform. I wonder if the film will end with Kirk et all thinking they were renegade Vulcans.

 

[Roronoa Zoro]

Actually the interview is flawed if Orci insists that you need a gravity well to construct parts of the ship then it is not impossible to create a gravity well in space to construct the Enterprise.

Also there are many ways in which Kirk can view the Enterprise being built in space. As it is known that a space carrier forget the name shuttled people from Earth to Alpha Centuri the same place Cochran was born and whom came to Earth and helped develop the warp engine. Also one of the first Enterprises to travel across the space was a luxury liner which is seen in the first movie as a picture on the wall it's the one that looks like a doughnut and has a phallic protrusion to it where Decker is showing Illea around.

So there would be plenty of chances for Kirk to view the Enterprise in space in all it's glory being built in space.

Remember Generations? Ok, the Enterprise did crash but I reckon if they didn't enter the atmosphere at such a steep angle (prompting Data to shit himself) they would have been able to 'pull up' and get back out of the atmosphere. Now if the enterprise-D could do that, then I am sure a smaller ship can.

Also I seem to recall that the saucer section of the Enterprise refit was fitted with landing struts so that it could land on a planet.

Klingon Birds of Prey landed on a planet.

USS Voyager could land on a planet.

If Trek has covered all of this before then why is it such a big deal now?

Bird of Prey and Voyager can land is because they were purpose built to land. If Enterprise was purpose built to land it would not look the shape it does and it would have feet...oops I mean landing struts. Please also note that there has been some considerable time passed between both series and technology does grow so please stop comparing this Enterprise with that Enterprise unless it's from the same time era type thingy.

Also building something of that size in terms of health and safety is somewhat wrong in that if the Enterprise took flight but then malfunctions and falls back down to Earth I doubt there would be a living soul left on the planet. Would you send Nuclear Wessles into space? Hell no they might come back down or else we would have done it years ago.

 

[dougkeenan]

Where is that quote from?

this interview

 

[ancient]

Ooo noob influx!

Man, are we still having this 'Enterprise in Atmosphere' argument? Guys, it's right there on screen. Again.

 

[Roronoa Zoro]

Ooo noob influx!

Man, are we still having this 'Enterprise in Atmosphere' argument? Guys, it's right there on screen. Again.

Ah I see so we should just forget everything Gene Roddenbury created and just go with the flow. Ah now I totally understand why WB keeps changing comic book movies to suit it's audience whom they think are thick oops I'm sorry noobish to realise that it's been changed. Just cos I'm a new member by no means in the least does that make me a noob.

Besides having a discussion on the subject is healthy.

 

[RoJoHen]

In the scene where young Kirk is driving the Corvette, how come in one scene the convertible top is up and then in the next, it is down? Is it a possible continuity error?

*facepalm*

 

[Roronoa Zoro]

In the scene where young Kirk is driving the Corvette, how come in one scene the convertible top is up and then in the next, it is down? Is it a possible continuity error?

*facepalm*

Well come on it's a trailer, it may not show the whole scene but just a snapshot of it in different places.

 

[Michael]

Ooo noob influx!

Man, are we still having this 'Enterprise in Atmosphere' argument? Guys, it's right there on screen. Again.

Ah I see so we should just forget everything Gene Roddenbury created and just go with the flow.

The Enterprises inability to land doesn't equal 'everything Roddenberry created'. It's sad to actually think that.

 

[Roronoa Zoro]

Ooo noob influx!

Man, are we still having this 'Enterprise in Atmosphere' argument? Guys, it's right there on screen. Again.

Ah I see so we should just forget everything Gene Roddenbury created and just go with the flow.

The Enterprises inability to land doesn't equal 'everything Roddenberry created'. It's sad to actually think that.

The arguement isn't really about landing it's about the Enterprise being built on earth rather than space.

 

[RoJoHen]

In the scene where young Kirk is driving the Corvette, how come in one scene the convertible top is up and then in the next, it is down? Is it a possible continuity error?

*facepalm*

Well come on it's a trailer, it may not show the whole scene but just a snapshot of it in different places.

Exactly why the question warranted the response I gave.

 

[Canadave]

Ooo noob influx!

Man, are we still having this 'Enterprise in Atmosphere' argument? Guys, it's right there on screen. Again.

Besides having a discussion on the subject is healthy.

But discussing the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over is getting pretty damn close to the definition of insanity.

 

[RoJoHen]

I'm personally loving all the noobs. They're so cute and dumb!

 

[flcat]

I'll prolly go see it, but I'm not getting the tingle up and down my leg.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

Ooo noob influx!

Man, are we still having this 'Enterprise in Atmosphere' argument? Guys, it's right there on screen. Again.

Besides having a discussion on the subject is healthy.

But discussing the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over is getting pretty damn close to the definition of insanity.

Between this and the "is she or isn't she Orion?" I am beginning to think this shouldn't be called a discussion forum at all. It's the freaking argument clinic from Monty Python.

"This isn't an argument. It's just contradiction!"

"No, it isn't."

 

[Trekker4747]

Also building something of that size in terms of health and safety is somewhat wrong in that if the Enterprise took flight but then malfunctions and falls back down to Earth I doubt there would be a living soul left on the planet. Would you send Nuclear Wessles into space? Hell no they might come back down or else we would have done it years ago.

Errr. We DO build nuclear reactors and send them into space. Because if they were to happen to fall back down and crash it wouldn't be much of a nuclear disaster because nuclear reactors aren't bombs. It just doesn't work like that. Nuclear reactors -get this- require a REACTION to take place for them to work.

But it does make far more sense to me to build the ship in orbit rather than planetside. While I'm sure the technology exists to help the ship maintain integrity planetisde and there's no real limitations to hauling it into space and there's no energy concerns it just "makes sense" that the thing would be built in space.

I can't think of a single good reason for it to be built planetside other than to have Kirk sneak in to look at it and it seems to me he could just as easily have taken a shuttle trip and snuck into a shipyard to view the construction.

Infact, such a thing to me would make far more sense. It'd show the 23rd equivilant of the rebelious man driving his car into a secure area -a rebelious young man driving his shuttle into a secured area.

 

[JoeZhang]

I can't think of a single good reason for it to be built planetside

Because it's the juxtaposition of the Enterprise and the earth that makes the shot interesting - another shoot of the enterprise in space dock is just another shoot of the enterprise in space dock...

This is why the films became so crap -people got hung up on "the rules" and not making visually interesting and compelling stories (with interesting characters) for a mainstream audience to watch.

Infact, such a thing to me would make far more sense.

No it makes it more consistent with the pseudo-scientific rationale you've constructed (which actually on one level I agree with but don't care enough about that's it's missing and prefer the shot we were given), that's not really the same as it making sense as a choice for a shot in a film.

 

[Michael]

I can't think of a single good reason for it to be built planetside other than to have Kirk sneak in to look at it

Seems like a good enough reason to me. I love that shot!

 

[Trekker4747]

I can't think of a single good reason for it to be built planetside other than to have Kirk sneak in to look at it

Seems like a good enough reason to me. I love that shot!

"Because it looks cool" or "because it'll be a neat scene" should never be a reason to make a scene.

That's Michael Bay thinking, there.