J.J. didn't say anything about that being the Enterprise, or Iowa. I suspect that bit came from someone at empire making assumptions.
San Francisco or Iowa?
- Thread starter JuanBolio
- Start date
Alright then. I think there's enough to extrapolate that Kirk is in Iowa and looking at the Enterprise. Weighing the options of what seems likely, I'm not thinking Kirk meets Pike at the bar and afterward drives to SF to meet up with Pike again. If Kirk's face were less banged up, I could see a decent space of time between each meeting. Then you have the most recent report which mentions the riverside shipyard and Kirk getting on a shuttle for the Academy.
Yep... it might very well be at Riverside Shipyards. Which is why I'm wondering if its the Enterprise we see in the trailer.
Why wouldn't it be?
Think about it. You're Orci or Kurtzman... you've already decided that the shipyards will be in Iowa in this alternate timeline. You want a scene of Kirk looking up at a big starship being constructed to make him want to join the Academy. Why wouldn't you make it the Enterprise? From a screenwriter's point of view, making it a different ship that just happens to look identical (just to placate a small number of fans) would never resonate with a general audience the way the Enterprise sitting there would. It might even confuse them.
Why do you think Nick Meyer put the Aircraft Carrier USS Enterprise in The Voyage Home? Would it have been as impactful if it were the USS Nimitz?
The only reason I can think of is that Orci, at least, knows damn well that the Enterprise was built in San Francisco. He'd either want to put Kirk there, or put a different ship somewhere else.
For what it's worth, was it ever mentioned in any Star Trek series that the NCC-1701 was built in San Francisco? I simply don't remember. I do know all the plaque read was:
USS ENTERPRISE
STARSHIP CLASS
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.
That says precious little about where it was built or mostly built. I suppose assumptions may be drawn from it, just as there were assumptions that Kirk was an Iowan, but many didn't accept it as canon until he finally said it in TVH.
So, is the construction of the Enterprise in San Francisco on screen canon? Or just one of those things we alway assumed as so?
USS ENTERPRISE
STARSHIP CLASS
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.
That says precious little about where it was built or mostly built. I suppose assumptions may be drawn from it, just as there were assumptions that Kirk was an Iowan, but many didn't accept it as canon until he finally said it in TVH.
So, is the construction of the Enterprise in San Francisco on screen canon? Or just one of those things we alway assumed as so?
I think he'd only be worried about that if they were setting their story in the original timeline. They seem to be playing around with details just as was done with the alternate 24th century in "Yesterday's Enterprise." The movie apparently begins with a timeline changing event. They obviously feel that it justifies much of what they are changing.
They could do it that way, sure. But why would they? Its a pointless change. It'd be easier just to put Kirk in San Francisco.
Because that's where Starfleet Headquarters is.
That's kinda my point. Home port, maybe? Starfleet HQ is there (not established on screen until TMP, if I remember correctly)? After all, the plaque also says "Starship Class." When was "Constitution Class" first mentioned on screen? And why wouldn't people be up in arms about it contradicting the plaque?
(Let me add I'm asking these questions innocently, because peppering them like that may make it sound like I'm trying to be argumentative. I'm not. Not at all. I'm just one of those who's forgotten more about Trek lore than he remembers, and I don't remember SF Shipyards, in SF, as canon.)
As I've said, it's not pointless in their minds (they are filmmakers first and foremost). They really, really, really wanted a dramatic moment where Kirk rides up to the grand ship and contemplates his future and the music swells (like Luke looking at the twin suns on Tatooine) before he goes to Frisco.
It's a "crossroads" moment for Kirk.
Plus J.J. fancies himself an Auteur. He wants to put his stamp on Star Trek.
Isn't the scene with Kirk on the bike the one filmed in Bakersfield, CA? That's just an hour or so south of where I live. I think the first shot in the trailer of Kirk riding the bike is in Iowa and the last part where they show the ship is in San Francisco. Maybe Kirk is riding his bike all the way from Iowa to California?
I'd say that's pretty likely, but I wouldn't put it past Abrams to boot canon in favor of convenience, especially on a minor thing like this.
If the scene with Kirk pulling up to the Enterprise isn't in Iowa, they sure went out of their way to make you think it is.
The same giant buildings are in the background between the Kid Kirk/Robocop and Adult Kirk/Enterprise scenes, the terrain is roughly the same farmland and dirt roads and plains, and Kirk is riding the same motorcycle and wearing the same jacket right up until he pulls up to the ship.
That, coupled with the fact that he has the bruises and cuts on his face from his brawl with the cadets (in Iowa) and that the Enterprise is confirmed to be built in Riverside makes it pretty clear they're building it in Iowa in this movie.
As for the ship being shown not being the Enterprise, that doesn't fit what they're trying to accomplish thematically with the launch of Kirk's career as a Starfleet officer (symbolized by his gazing up at the ship and imagining his future after Pike's admonishment) and the launch of the Enterprise. Given the significance of the scene it makes sense to have the Enterprise be the ship he's looking at.
Plus, as mentioned, in an origin story designed to bring in casual viewers, it's probably not a good idea to have an identical ship to the hero ship show up earlier.
The same giant buildings are in the background between the Kid Kirk/Robocop and Adult Kirk/Enterprise scenes, the terrain is roughly the same farmland and dirt roads and plains, and Kirk is riding the same motorcycle and wearing the same jacket right up until he pulls up to the ship.
That, coupled with the fact that he has the bruises and cuts on his face from his brawl with the cadets (in Iowa) and that the Enterprise is confirmed to be built in Riverside makes it pretty clear they're building it in Iowa in this movie.
As for the ship being shown not being the Enterprise, that doesn't fit what they're trying to accomplish thematically with the launch of Kirk's career as a Starfleet officer (symbolized by his gazing up at the ship and imagining his future after Pike's admonishment) and the launch of the Enterprise. Given the significance of the scene it makes sense to have the Enterprise be the ship he's looking at.
Plus, as mentioned, in an origin story designed to bring in casual viewers, it's probably not a good idea to have an identical ship to the hero ship show up earlier.
Exactly. The San Francisco Shipyards could have facilities all over the planet, including orbital. Case in point: most people seem to feel that the Enterprise was built in orbit. Yet its plaque clearly says San Francisco. Unless the city itself was boosted into space, it seems pretty obvious that the Shipyards encompass multiple sites.
Agreed. Kind of like how a Toyota or Honda is still considered a Japanese car, even though a lot of them are actually made in the US.
And sometimes writers can try to be too cute and in doing so take you right out of the movie. This seems like one of those times.
Would you buy this if in Top Gun, the Tom Cruise character lived right down the street from where the plane that he files was built? Where he watches it being built?
Would you buy this if in Top Gun, the Tom Cruise character lived right down the street from where the plane that he files was built? Where he watches it being built?
Or, you know, the SanFran ship yards were in synchronous orbit over the city for which it was named.
San Joaquin Valley?
If it is, the Barkley's are turning over in their graves.
