So based on anecdotal evidence, you're choosing to believe that none of us actually did have that reaction -- that we all must be liars. That is snobbery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit
Redesigning the Enterprise for STXII?
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
No, I'm saying it's a meme that populates TrekBBS in particular, that a remarkably large number of people here have internalized, and today continue to repeat only because it is fashionable to do so.
Did you even read that page? Geostationary orbits have altitudes around 35,000 kilometers and ONLY over the equator. San Francisco isn't on the equator, and Narada's drill platform sure as hell isn't 35,000 kilometers long.
All I can give you then is my word about my own reaction watching the movie. Any one of us could say "Well, my friend isn't a Trekkie and isn't on TrekBBS and had such-and-such reaction," but we know that wouldn't work. To each his own, but I know what I felt in the theater when watching particular scenes, specifically when Cupcake trapped Kirk in Engineering.
That's what a geosynchronous orbit is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geosychronous_orbit (different than geostationary, though a geostationary orbit is geosynchronous of a specific point).
First of all, yes, you are calling us liars:
"the majority of the people who say things like 'I noticed it was a brewery' are actually lying"
Second: Again, this is based on anecdotal evidence. You have no evidence that opinions of people who read TBBS are "remarkably" skewed, because:
1) the few people you have personally talked to are unrepresentative of the general population;
2) the number of people on TBBS who actually voice their opinions on the matter are a small percentage of the TBBS readership.
I give you my word as well: When I first went into the movie I had no behind-the-scenes knowledge, but if you had asked me what I thought as I came out of the theater I would have said the same thing.
Geostationary orbits are directly above the equator: True. I thought you were only talking about Vulcan, not Earth. They were at Vulcan's equator for all we know. Then again, the Enterprise may have been at Earth's equator as well. Just because it can be seen from San Francisco doesn't mean it's directly above it.
Geostationary orbits have altitudes of 35,000 kilometers: False. That's not part of the definition of "geostationary orbit", it's merely what is required to achieve it at Earth, and with satellites. Vulcan isn't Earth, and with self-propelled objects like starships, the orbit doesn't need to be self-sustaining as with satellites.
And, what's your point anyway? Was "San Francisco isn't at the equator and they're not 35,000 kilometers high" actually going through your mind as you watched the movie?
Geosynchronus orbits do not remain STATIONARY around a single point and still have orbits of tens of thousands of kilometers.
Basically, yes. And this being the internet... why not?
Aint that the truth! My whole point is that what the general population notices and what the denizens of TrekBBS notice--or claim to notice, or claim to KNOW--are two completely different things. Part of it has to do with the fact that many of us are armchair scientists who insist on having an "informed opinion" about just about everything. More importantly... this is the internet.
Indeed... and yet there are so few variations on that singular opinion it can be readily identified as a meme, and not a genuine recollection as such.
It happens all the time with urban legends, internet chain letters, rumors, gossip, organized religions, even political rhetoric (which is why "wellfare queen" anecdotes always involve someone driving a Cadillac using foodstamps at the grocery store). When you tell the same story frequently enough as if it were true, sooner or later you start to forget that it isn't.
I patently don't believe you. I fully believe you saw the engineering set and thought it didn't fit, thought it reminded you something "20th century industrial" like a dairy farm or a chemical factory or something of that nature.
But "that looks like a brewery"? Come on.
I thought about this for Vulcan, but I couldn't get it to work unless the gravity is very low and rotational velocity is very high. At least for Vulcan I tried to give it the benefit of the doubt... but orbiting above the equator and dropping the drill over San Francisco in order to get at the core... that just defies logic and physics on too many levels. It's a scientific gaffe by the Abrams team, the kind that they assumed (correctly) most people wouldn't notice.
Yes it is, because the suffice "geo" by definition is an orbit around EARTH. Similar to the terms "perigee" or "apogee" imply the lowest or highest points of an orbit around Earth. Stationary orbit around Mars, for example, is called "Areostationary Orbit," and the lowest and highest points of a lunar orbit are "perilune" and "apolune" and so on (stationary orbits are not possible around all planets, like Venus and the moon for example).
Anyway, I was talking about Earth.
Honestly, the only thing that went through my head was "Opening scene... Revenge of the Sith... SHIT!" and then I shook it off, ignored it and went along for the ride. I didn't give any thought to it until the third time I saw it.
But you aren't merely calling those of us liars who specifically claimed they immediately thought it was a brewery; you're also doubting the whole general reaction of being "taken out of the movie":
"As for people being 'taken out of the movie,' I'm forced to interpret that as simple snobbery."
The above is exactly what I'm claiming happened. I didn't say I thought it looked like a brewery when I was walking out of the theater.
I also think you're misinterpreting just how many people are making that claim. When someone says "the brewery took me out of the movie," what they most likely mean is "the incongruity of the set which I later learned was a brewery took me out of the movie," not "my knowledge that it was a brewery took me out of the movie" as you are apparently interpreting it.
On the other hand, you're probably also underestimating how many people DID already know what a brewery looks like.
That's etymology, not definition. At modern-day NASA, "geo" clearly means "planet", not "Earth":
http://scienceandtechnology.jpl.nasa.gov/newsandevents/newsdetails/?NewsID=47
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/science/geology/
http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/topnav/materials/listbytype/Planetary.Geology.html
Anyway, I just find it odd that out of all the logical problems in the movie, this easily explainable issue would be the one that stands out to you.
Because the management of this BBS has always politely (yet firmly) asked that you not do so.
Express doubt about the content of a post all you like, but please don't take it to the poster personally by calling anyone a liar. Poor form, and all that.
If not a brewery, then clearly at least something liquid-based -- beer, dairy, chemical vat, whatever. That's probably Abrams they went with a brewery in the first place.
(and any Wisconsonian, St. Louisian, or German will tell you what a brewery looks like!
)
Well ... they could have been hovering using advanced engine technology, perhaps, or anti-gravity.
But then, I wouldn't expect a ship with a brewery for an engine room to be able to do that, either.
It looked weird/futuristic to me with the giant shiny spheres. I was impressed with the scale; didn't take me out at all.
Yep, I was really impressed at the use of practical sets over "green screen" wherever possible. The way they did the space jump close-ups was absolutely brilliant and low-tech without looking like it was done on the cheap. I have zero complaints with the design aspect of that film.
I have no clue what a warp drive would look like, so why not?
Which has little or nothing to do with the design aesthetic. I get that you don't like the look of it, but "it's a futuristic technology" doesn't make the design in the film inherently bad.
You doubt the existence of snobbery among nerds?
That kinda goes both ways. I'm basically saying a much larger number of people have said "I immediately recognized that it was a brewery" than actually had that experience. I guess it's just easier to recite a buzz phrase than it is to articulate an actual perception.
I think given the choice between you/googlesearch and actual usage by NASA and/or astronomers, I'll choose the latter, thank you.
Again, it's only the scene over San Francisco that bothered me. The chain is too short and in the wrong position to be stationary unless the Narada is sitting there hovering under power the entire time. And I'd be willing to accept THAT just fine, but then I'd have to go back to Vulcan and figure out why the destroyed Federation ships were floating in space and not plummeting down to the surface.
That's what I thought when I saw it... chemical factory or some such.
To be perfectly honest, my FIRST impression was that we were finally seeing the sometimes mentioned but never seen fabrication equipment for the replicators/foodslots, especially in the "chase through engineering" scene. The vats in the "warp core ejection sequence" didn't seem out of place to me at all, though.
On the contrary, I think your assertion that anyone who has a different opinion than you and your in-person contacts must be either lying or delusionally mis-remembering their experiences -- is a perfect example of snobbery.
...Um, that IS actual use by NASA. Did you even look at those links? All three of them go to nasa.gov, the official NASA site.I think given the choice between you/googlesearch and actual usage by NASA and/or astronomers, I'll choose the latter, thank you.
Nor to me, but if I wish to stay consistent with my earlier argument, well, the vats were next to warp cores that shot into outer space, and you can't get a much more established scene than that
Now on a tangent, I thought it was neat that the warp core came in different components. The nerd in me thinks it'd be rather easy to reconcile that with previous Trek, in that we tended to see segmented portions of warp cores before, just combined together in cylinder form. Seeing as how Trek just loves to compartmentalize things, the warp core had to be next.
Dang (*hic*) skippy!
If not a brewery, then clearly at least something liquid-based -- beer, dairy, chemical vat, whatever. That's probably Abrams they went with a brewery in the first place.
(and any Wisconsonian, St. Louisian, or German will tell you what a brewery looks like!
I figured it was because the nuEnterprise was a bajillion times bigger than the old one, it needed 6 warp cores just to run the damn thing.
Nor to me, but if I wish to stay consistent with my earlier argument, well, the vats were next to warp cores that shot into outer space, and you can't get a much more established scene than that
Now on a tangent, I thought it was neat that the warp core came in different components. The nerd in me thinks it'd be rather easy to reconcile that with previous Trek, in that we tended to see segmented portions of warp cores before, just combined together in cylinder form. Seeing as how Trek just loves to compartmentalize things, the warp core had to be next.
The warp cores in those silos looked pretty similar to the NX-01's reactor tank, just without the cute windows it had showing the glowing energies.
Like most, i wasnt thrilled by the new enterprise in Its initial images first released but i quickly realised that it was designed to be moving and it looked pretty damn cool on the move.
I had my gripes with the design as much as the next person but, i just accepted it was their version. Fair enough, i wasnt too thrilled with the USS Supersize and its curves etc but hey, its just a movie. Didnt change my view on the Trek i loved before.
But, as changes go, i doubt there will be big changes. Probably just such things as surface details and equip/set alterations.
My main gripe was with engeneering and the bridge. Just didnt do it for me. Was cool looking but just didnt go 'wow'
If they change engineering itll be cool. Considering those kick ass concept images compared to what we got was just disapointing. You can compare TOS engine room quirks and design features as much as you like but it was just a penny pinching lazy decision. Fair enough they extended it via cg and backdrops etc, but, its still, a umm, brewery.
Id be happy with an engineering overhaul. On the plus side, i loved hanger bay.
I had my gripes with the design as much as the next person but, i just accepted it was their version. Fair enough, i wasnt too thrilled with the USS Supersize and its curves etc but hey, its just a movie. Didnt change my view on the Trek i loved before.
But, as changes go, i doubt there will be big changes. Probably just such things as surface details and equip/set alterations.
My main gripe was with engeneering and the bridge. Just didnt do it for me. Was cool looking but just didnt go 'wow'
If they change engineering itll be cool. Considering those kick ass concept images compared to what we got was just disapointing. You can compare TOS engine room quirks and design features as much as you like but it was just a penny pinching lazy decision. Fair enough they extended it via cg and backdrops etc, but, its still, a umm, brewery.
Id be happy with an engineering overhaul. On the plus side, i loved hanger bay.
Similar threads
