Haynes Enterprise Manual Updates?
- Thread starter Admiral_Young
- Start date
- Status
I agree.
Hope this book hasn't been lost in the editorial personnel shuffling at Pocket books of late.
If it has been cancelled, this would be only due to two things:
1) Inability to come up with a proper, consistent, technical solution to issues (which I think is well-demonstrated to be a problem due to the "incredible shifting ship scale" issue so evident in the flick, for instance).
2) A belief on the part of the publishers that there is insufficient demand to justify the publishing expenditure.
Personally, I strongly suspect that BOTH would play into this decision, and would likely result in the book being canceled. However, that's just personal opinion.
Considering it's primarily the hardcore fans who buy such books, and the ones who are pretty cheesed off at this film are hardcore fans, it's a pretty safe assumption that a book of this nature would do less than desired business.
Cary, I actually think that the use of thinly-disguised real world locations also presented a hurdle. In the video-game industry, there's been quite a few lawsuits over the use of real locations and interiors without licensing, and I can easily imagine Budweiser wanting a 'cut' if they're even going to allow their brewery layout to be shown in the plans for the world to see.
Add it all up, and you're looking at a lot of headaches for a not-very-assured return.
I had to register here so I could point out this doesn't make sense. The timeline has already been altered, and nothing they do will make "evil nero" disappear BTTF style or alter their new timeline in anyway.
They can save nu-Romulus and nu-Nero, but not prime-Romulus or prime-Nero, etc.
Well, this all depends on how you view "time travel."
Personally, I HATE "time travel" stories in the first place, but the best Star Trek involving time travel... for example, City on the Edge of Forever... established that there is only one reality, and if you go into the past to make a change, you alter everything, including the your "present."
I believe that there was only one TNG episode that played with the idea of time travel ala ST'09. There was also another which played with the idea of parallel universes, as well, and you might choose to interpret that as being support of the "many universes" FICTIONAL CONCEPT (there is absolutely not one iota of real science supporting that, no matter who the person who likes that fictional concept may be... even if the person who writes that fiction happens to have attended college for eight years instead of four!)
If you accept the "many universes diverging" thing... "City" needs to be thrown out. As does "Yesteryear" and "Tomorrow is Yesterday" and on and on.
Personally, I find the whole concept to be obnoxiously simplistic anyway. See, I view everything... all of the universe... and a continuum. We have many different "dimensions"... but realize what a "dimension" is. A dimension is height, width, length, time, and others which we haven't really named... but all represent "linear sliding coordinate scales." You can move along any of these dimensions... including TIME. We just happen to perceive reality in a certain way because we're sliding down a "time slope" at a rate of approximately 1 second per... well, second.
The "many universes" concept has a great deal of appeal to people who don't want to let anything have permanent consequences... because "in another reality, the other thing happened instead, and every possible choice happens and creates a new reality." It's really wishful-thinking nonsense.
Whereas I view it as "in another possible reality, this WOULD HAVE HAPPENED... but that reality isn't the one that actually happened."
I don't care that Bob Orci pretends that "real scientists believe this." A few "real scientists" also believe that the world is going to blow up in December 2012. Doesn't mean that they're doing anything other than projecting what they want to believe and pretending it's "science."
Science requires evidence... data... PROOF... for a true scientist to claim that something is true. But scientists... all scientists... are human, after all, and can have their own little personal fantasy lives just like everyone else.
Ultimately, Bob Orci and the rest of the ST'09 team used that bogus line to try to fool the audience into believing that this wasn't a REPLACEMENT for what had been before.
Of course, since it's all fictional, that's what really counts... this is intended to replace all of that. Sure the old DVDs and books and so forth still exist, but this is intended to "take over" everything that comes in the future.
Somehow, I suspect that it'll fail.
SO...
What I proposed makes perfect sense. If Kirk and Spock destroy Hobus, doing so will cause the "future Nero" to never have gone mad... and thus never have returned to the past. Suddenly, all you have is the classic, unaltered Trek universe, with one minor change - an obscure star deep inside Romulan space, with no inhabited planets, undergoes an inexplicable destruction... and puzzled scientists would debate "what happened to Hobus" for decades to come, never knowing the true reason.
The entire "ST'09" reality would be a brief causality loop which would "wink out" once Hobus was destroyed. A new, and much less different, version of "trek history" would unfold, with the only difference being that premature Hobus destruction, and the eventual lack of the consequences of the later "super-hyper-nova." Which, after all, would have effectively NO impact on the Trek universe we know.
Cary, I agree about the way time travel works in Trek. I just wrote about it elsewhere actually. Trek's Time travel is well established. If you alter the past it effects YOUR present. There are at least half a dozen direct examples of this I'm sure, and the idea that the new timeline exists in an alternate dimension was never even actually brought up in the film I don't believe.
But to me it doesn't matter really, even if the movie posits to erase the original timeline, it's not like those stories can't still be told.
This still doesn't work though. It doesn't matter if it's an alternate dimension or a single timeline, you can't change the past by altering an already altered future. Doc Brown explains it reasonably well;
But to me it doesn't matter really, even if the movie posits to erase the original timeline, it's not like those stories can't still be told.
This still doesn't work though. It doesn't matter if it's an alternate dimension or a single timeline, you can't change the past by altering an already altered future. Doc Brown explains it reasonably well;
ST-One
Vice Admiral
Oops - so even quite a few of the Elect themselves would have grumbled about it.
For the DVD release, "Hercules" reprints his excellent summation of the real movie and why it works so well, for so many millions, here: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/43075
Oh, and because Hercules on AICN likes it, it MUST be good, right?
The plot was hackeneyed, amateurish pap, the science was embarassingly ignorant, the characterizations were a disgrace to the entire cardboard and plywood industries, and the direction was straight out of the Michael Bay "Directing Big Budget Popcorn Flicks for Dummies" playbook.
Best reviewed piece of utter crap in the history of the movie industry.
The plot was hackeneyed, amateurish pap, the science was embarassingly ignorant, the characterizations were a disgrace to the entire cardboard and plywood industries, and the direction was straight out of the Michael Bay "Directing Big Budget Popcorn Flicks for Dummies" playbook.
Best reviewed piece of utter crap in the history of the movie industry.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
but presented in a exciting, fun way.
There was not one thing that was 'amateurish' about this film.
Yes, give me giant space amoebas and sling-shot time travels around a sun instead.
Oddly enough that actor who originally played one of the main characters says otherwise.
Not even close.
But we are not talking about 2001.
Well now, there's a leap beyond logic for sure.
I liked it and therefore as far as I'm concerned it IS good, without reference to what either "Hercules" or you think. That said, his opinion is clearly and cogently expressed and does bear some relationship to the actual film, whereas your complaints rarely do.
Another fun issue for the Haynes guys, something I realized when discussing ship sizes elsewhere...
Actually, there are a few places where I see this cropping up. Someone involved in the movie (sadly, probably highly placed in production) didn't know the difference between "meter" and "foot", and demanded that the measurements be made in meters without converting the numbers as needed.
Actually, there are a few places where I see this cropping up. Someone involved in the movie (sadly, probably highly placed in production) didn't know the difference between "meter" and "foot", and demanded that the measurements be made in meters without converting the numbers as needed.
Why am I not surprised?
I see the advertisement for the original Enterprise, but where is it?
- Status
Similar threads
