Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater?
- Thread starter tmosler
- Start date
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater
Sorry, but an "explanation" without at least 75 words of techno-gibberish doesn't qualify as an explanation.
Occam's razor? In MY Star Trek?
Sorry, but an "explanation" without at least 75 words of techno-gibberish doesn't qualify as an explanation.
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater
That image, however, ignores the vast differences between all of those situations not only from one another but from the ST:ID clip.
The NX-01 clips I cannot recall so I'll leave those alone, the situation they were in may have made it possible or whatever. The Gas Giant one I can quibble with, however but we'll get to that in a moment.
Abrams 1701 built on Earth. - Ummm were you here in 2009? People DID take a lot of issue with that! A HELL of a lot of issues with it. And it's still absurd it's being assembled, in full, on a planet. When it's not exactly the most balanced design.
Titan's Atmo/A-1701: Titan's atmosphere is a bit more dense than Earth's (about 1 1/2 times, I believe)... at the surface! In the upper atmosphere it's going to be a lot less dense. We've seen Kirk's Enterprise and the -D survive in upper atmospheres but usually with difficulty.
A-1701 in Blackhole: IIRC people took a lot of issue with this as well, not the least of which being the depiction of the blackhole being nothing at all like how blackholes actually work.
The next two pictures aren't from shows/movies. But the first one could be depicting "Tomorrow is Yesterday" where the Enterprise arrived in Earth atmosphere in 1969. IIRC the Enterprise was operating under power troubles and Scotty worried about getting them back to orbit before the ship got to far down in the atmosphere.
Cartoon. Not worthy of mention. But... who would argue about an "aquashuttle" being, you know, underwater. That's like complaining about a submarine being under water.
Ent-D in the corona of a star: With it's shields on, without them they wouldn't survive and the corona of a star is a bit different than the issue at hand.
Galaxy being built on Mars. Mars has lower gravity and lower atmospheric density. Also, we can see the ship being built in pieces. For all we know they haul the pieces up and then assemble the whole ship in orbit. It was also an image on a computer screen in the background and should probably be taken as seriously as the "in-jokes" on signage and monitors. Unless you really want to believe that people in Trek's time have health insurance limits to the point of needing such a statistic on their biobed monitor letting doctors know how much they have left.
Defiant in Gas Giant- Much, much, smaller ship than the A-Enterprise. Also during the course of the episode the ship was falling deeper into the atmosphere and at risk of being destroyed unless they got power back on. IIRC the ship was creaking and constantly under danger of being crushed.
Voyager in BH - I'm sure many took issue with this, I know I did, especially if it was past the event horizon. But it ignores how blackholes "really work." Even if the ship was past the event horizon it'd be under no additional pressure than it would under any other gravitational situation. It'd just need to achieve moving faster than light to escape. (Which depending on how you want to think warp-drive works, the ship cannot do.)
Voyager in FS - We don't know the physics of other universes. But, I do recall some taking issue with his as well. Voyager was hardly known for making sense or staying consistent.
Voyager embedded in ice - Voyager was designed for atmospheric re-entry and landings.
DF in water planet - Again, many DID take issue with this. But the DF is vastly smaller vessel than the A-Ent (or any Trek ship), designed for these types of maneuvers, and it's not unreasonable to think 24c have learned to build things that can survive the pressures of the bottom of the (an) ocean.
Pegasus Asteroid - Caused by a phased cloaking device built by John Locke, there's certainly questions here but we don't know how the device works or how it displaced the rock when the device failed.
Holoship- Much smaller than the Enterprise and likely designed for atmospheric re-entry in a shallow lake. Hardly the same thing.
Look, there's a LOT of things we have to hand wave and accept when it comes to Trek and it's hardly been consistent at all. But the thing is the Enterprise is huge and hardly the most aerodynamic or balanced shape. The few times we've seen an Enterprise enter Earth's atmosphere or the atmosphere of a planet it was under very, very extreme circumstances and in all of those times it was a case of "we better fucking get back into space quick!" Yes, the SIF and IDF systems will provide tons of help in these situations but let's simply throw away all of that. Let's accept that maybe Abrams' larger-than-the-Enterprise-D Enterprise-Nil can enter Earth's atmosphere, go to surface level and then go underwater for a period of time. It's a bit silly but probably Treknologically possible. (Even though we've seen many cases of being an atmosphere as something Starfleet officers try and to avoid.) It could be a "can be done, but shouldn't be done" thing.
Here's the issue: Why?!
This is STAR Trek! The Enterprise is a STARship!It should be in SPACE! Why make a scene of it fucking coming out of an ocean?
That image, however, ignores the vast differences between all of those situations not only from one another but from the ST:ID clip.
The NX-01 clips I cannot recall so I'll leave those alone, the situation they were in may have made it possible or whatever. The Gas Giant one I can quibble with, however but we'll get to that in a moment.
Abrams 1701 built on Earth. - Ummm were you here in 2009? People DID take a lot of issue with that! A HELL of a lot of issues with it. And it's still absurd it's being assembled, in full, on a planet. When it's not exactly the most balanced design.
Titan's Atmo/A-1701: Titan's atmosphere is a bit more dense than Earth's (about 1 1/2 times, I believe)... at the surface! In the upper atmosphere it's going to be a lot less dense. We've seen Kirk's Enterprise and the -D survive in upper atmospheres but usually with difficulty.
A-1701 in Blackhole: IIRC people took a lot of issue with this as well, not the least of which being the depiction of the blackhole being nothing at all like how blackholes actually work.
The next two pictures aren't from shows/movies. But the first one could be depicting "Tomorrow is Yesterday" where the Enterprise arrived in Earth atmosphere in 1969. IIRC the Enterprise was operating under power troubles and Scotty worried about getting them back to orbit before the ship got to far down in the atmosphere.
Cartoon. Not worthy of mention. But... who would argue about an "aquashuttle" being, you know, underwater. That's like complaining about a submarine being under water.
Ent-D in the corona of a star: With it's shields on, without them they wouldn't survive and the corona of a star is a bit different than the issue at hand.
Galaxy being built on Mars. Mars has lower gravity and lower atmospheric density. Also, we can see the ship being built in pieces. For all we know they haul the pieces up and then assemble the whole ship in orbit. It was also an image on a computer screen in the background and should probably be taken as seriously as the "in-jokes" on signage and monitors. Unless you really want to believe that people in Trek's time have health insurance limits to the point of needing such a statistic on their biobed monitor letting doctors know how much they have left.
Defiant in Gas Giant- Much, much, smaller ship than the A-Enterprise. Also during the course of the episode the ship was falling deeper into the atmosphere and at risk of being destroyed unless they got power back on. IIRC the ship was creaking and constantly under danger of being crushed.
Voyager in BH - I'm sure many took issue with this, I know I did, especially if it was past the event horizon. But it ignores how blackholes "really work." Even if the ship was past the event horizon it'd be under no additional pressure than it would under any other gravitational situation. It'd just need to achieve moving faster than light to escape. (Which depending on how you want to think warp-drive works, the ship cannot do.)
Voyager in FS - We don't know the physics of other universes. But, I do recall some taking issue with his as well. Voyager was hardly known for making sense or staying consistent.
Voyager embedded in ice - Voyager was designed for atmospheric re-entry and landings.
DF in water planet - Again, many DID take issue with this. But the DF is vastly smaller vessel than the A-Ent (or any Trek ship), designed for these types of maneuvers, and it's not unreasonable to think 24c have learned to build things that can survive the pressures of the bottom of the (an) ocean.
Pegasus Asteroid - Caused by a phased cloaking device built by John Locke, there's certainly questions here but we don't know how the device works or how it displaced the rock when the device failed.
Holoship- Much smaller than the Enterprise and likely designed for atmospheric re-entry in a shallow lake. Hardly the same thing.
Look, there's a LOT of things we have to hand wave and accept when it comes to Trek and it's hardly been consistent at all. But the thing is the Enterprise is huge and hardly the most aerodynamic or balanced shape. The few times we've seen an Enterprise enter Earth's atmosphere or the atmosphere of a planet it was under very, very extreme circumstances and in all of those times it was a case of "we better fucking get back into space quick!" Yes, the SIF and IDF systems will provide tons of help in these situations but let's simply throw away all of that. Let's accept that maybe Abrams' larger-than-the-Enterprise-D Enterprise-Nil can enter Earth's atmosphere, go to surface level and then go underwater for a period of time. It's a bit silly but probably Treknologically possible. (Even though we've seen many cases of being an atmosphere as something Starfleet officers try and to avoid.) It could be a "can be done, but shouldn't be done" thing.
Here's the issue: Why?!
This is STAR Trek! The Enterprise is a STARship!It should be in SPACE! Why make a scene of it fucking coming out of an ocean?
Last edited:
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater
We've found the one environment the Enterprise can't possibly survive: The colossal pressures involved when Trekker sucks all the fun out of the room.
We've found the one environment the Enterprise can't possibly survive: The colossal pressures involved when Trekker sucks all the fun out of the room.
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater
Cause it looks awesome on the big screen.
Cause it looks awesome on the big screen.
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater
Well, J.J. you're not giving us much to work with. How about you tell us what YOUR MOVIE IS ABOUT!!!! And, yes, I WILL enjoy my reruns. I love them infact. You arrogant ass.
"Because it Looks Cool" is a shitty reason to put anything in a movie.
Well, J.J. you're not giving us much to work with. How about you tell us what YOUR MOVIE IS ABOUT!!!! And, yes, I WILL enjoy my reruns. I love them infact. You arrogant ass.
"Because it Looks Cool" is a shitty reason to put anything in a movie.
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater
Professor Farnsworth: Good Lord! That's over 5000 atmospheres of pressure!
Fry: How many atmospheres can the ship withstand?
Professor Farnsworth: Well, it was built for space travel, so anywhere between zero and one.
Professor Farnsworth: Good Lord! That's over 5000 atmospheres of pressure!
Fry: How many atmospheres can the ship withstand?
Professor Farnsworth: Well, it was built for space travel, so anywhere between zero and one.
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater
You read that?
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater
Meh. Avatar is the highest grossing Sci-fi fantasy film of all time - and a lot of that has to do with the awesome visuals and not the storyline nor the explanations of tech.
I'm also a Wars fan and unlike Trek they don't go through the process of endless boring explanations as to why things are done but rather they look cool.
A great example of that was in the Empire Strikes Back and the walkers as pictured below are completely unpractical in military terms but they looked awesome.
Meh. Avatar is the highest grossing Sci-fi fantasy film of all time - and a lot of that has to do with the awesome visuals and not the storyline nor the explanations of tech.
I'm also a Wars fan and unlike Trek they don't go through the process of endless boring explanations as to why things are done but rather they look cool.
A great example of that was in the Empire Strikes Back and the walkers as pictured below are completely unpractical in military terms but they looked awesome.
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater
Given some of your recent posts, I'd ask if you deactivated your emotion chip, but clearly you're still capable of displaying anger, so it must be something else.
His point is that the Enterprise going underwater is such an inconsequential thing to be upset over in comparison to the overall story, which you will get later on when the movie comes out. And yes, it's there to look cool. Don't you like that they're trying new things instead of just having the ship hang there like a lump in space?
My point with the picture was not to measure exact pressure, density, viscosity, and so forth (though the NX-01 flying deep into that gas giant would exert far greater pressure than going underwater, and it takes place in the ST09 timeline, which is why it's convenient that you glossed over that one), but to establish that clearly starships are designed for or capable of surviving a wide variety of environments, including going underwater, which they have done before without all the uproar. I just don't understand why the Enterprise being underwater is such a vast and inconceivable technological leap from other examples that it strains suspension of disbelief.
And yes, I was here for the equally ridiculous opposition before ST09 to the ship being built on the ground, which is why I included the pic of a Galaxy Class ship being built on the ground on Mars. Yes, I'm aware that Mars has lower gravity than Earth, however that's not the point.
Given some of your recent posts, I'd ask if you deactivated your emotion chip, but clearly you're still capable of displaying anger, so it must be something else.
His point is that the Enterprise going underwater is such an inconsequential thing to be upset over in comparison to the overall story, which you will get later on when the movie comes out. And yes, it's there to look cool. Don't you like that they're trying new things instead of just having the ship hang there like a lump in space?
My point with the picture was not to measure exact pressure, density, viscosity, and so forth (though the NX-01 flying deep into that gas giant would exert far greater pressure than going underwater, and it takes place in the ST09 timeline, which is why it's convenient that you glossed over that one), but to establish that clearly starships are designed for or capable of surviving a wide variety of environments, including going underwater, which they have done before without all the uproar. I just don't understand why the Enterprise being underwater is such a vast and inconceivable technological leap from other examples that it strains suspension of disbelief.
And yes, I was here for the equally ridiculous opposition before ST09 to the ship being built on the ground, which is why I included the pic of a Galaxy Class ship being built on the ground on Mars. Yes, I'm aware that Mars has lower gravity than Earth, however that's not the point.
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater
I more interested in story and characters. I don't need to see the cool CGI effect of a starship rising out of water to get my jollies.
For example: Some people expressed confusion how the last act(s) of the Transformer movies were so maligned for being nothing by action and explosions but people rave about the last act of the Avengers movie when it was all action and explosions.
The difference is that in Avengers we knew who the characters were, we LIKED the characters and we were invested in them. In Transformers we've not nearly enough investment in the Transformers to know them or their personalities (or enough to distinguish them from the other lumps of metal in the movies) and the only human characters we have are Shia LeBouff and his stammering yelling and his out-of-his-league lip-parted hottie girlfirend standing there looking hot with her lips parted.
Very, very, different things. Avatar spent nearly all of its three hour running time setting up the situation and characters before taking us into a long, cool-looking, effects scene of the battle.
Sorry, I want something more out of a movie than "it looking cool." There was pretty much nothing in that Star Trek trailer to get me excited. Because there was nothing to it but random shots of cool-looking stuff. Fantastic. What's the STORY?! What's the movie going to be about? What is happening?! I need more than a scene of the Enterprise rising out of water to get excited about a movie.
And, no it's not convenient I didn't mention the NX-01 scenes because I simply do not remember them. It's been a very long time since I've watched Enterprise. I've probably not seen those scenes since the episode aired. If the ship is surviving great pressures in a gas-giant then, yes, that IS stupid given the time-period and lack of shield. But, keep in mind, Berman and Braga where hardly known for keeping things consistent during Voyager and Enterprise when it came to things like that. (How many shuttles does Voyager have, now? Torpedoes? Why does the holodeck have an independent power system? (Oh! So we can use it but not need to worry about conserving power for critical systems to get us home. I mean we don't want to prevent ourselves from doing holodeck episdoes!)
I had hope that, on some level, Abrams "got" Trek and knew that it was never about effects and visuals but about telling stories. Having characters be interesting and dealing with present-day issues in a futuristic setting. Look at TWK and TUC both movies that are often lauded and both are movies that hardly relied on effects and action scenes to do their good work as they're movies driven by character and story. And, yes, both relied on effects during the climatic endings but only after story and setting up a situation. Not because of just the hell of it.
I'm not going to excited over a trailer showing me cool-looking visuals. (Oh! Kirk falling over a ledge and holding on by his
fingertips. I've NEVER seen that before!* (*=Since 2009)
Oh! The Enterprise rising slowly out of a non-space environment! How cool! I've not seen that before!* (*=Since 2009)
Oh! Cool! An enemy who wants vengeance on Earth for mysterious reasons! How unique!* (*=Ignoring, ST=2009, Star Trek Nemesis.)
I had just hoped for more out of this movie after 2009. Which I DID like. But, really, right now it looks like it's not going to be too vastly different but granting I've not much at all to go on. I'll still see it, and I've not nearly the number of problems with 2009 as others do. It's flawed but I can accept it as its own thing that has no impact on the Trek I know and love, but I just wanted, I dunno, more than neat-looking visuals.
I more interested in story and characters. I don't need to see the cool CGI effect of a starship rising out of water to get my jollies.
For example: Some people expressed confusion how the last act(s) of the Transformer movies were so maligned for being nothing by action and explosions but people rave about the last act of the Avengers movie when it was all action and explosions.
The difference is that in Avengers we knew who the characters were, we LIKED the characters and we were invested in them. In Transformers we've not nearly enough investment in the Transformers to know them or their personalities (or enough to distinguish them from the other lumps of metal in the movies) and the only human characters we have are Shia LeBouff and his stammering yelling and his out-of-his-league lip-parted hottie girlfirend standing there looking hot with her lips parted.
Very, very, different things. Avatar spent nearly all of its three hour running time setting up the situation and characters before taking us into a long, cool-looking, effects scene of the battle.
Sorry, I want something more out of a movie than "it looking cool." There was pretty much nothing in that Star Trek trailer to get me excited. Because there was nothing to it but random shots of cool-looking stuff. Fantastic. What's the STORY?! What's the movie going to be about? What is happening?! I need more than a scene of the Enterprise rising out of water to get excited about a movie.
And, no it's not convenient I didn't mention the NX-01 scenes because I simply do not remember them. It's been a very long time since I've watched Enterprise. I've probably not seen those scenes since the episode aired. If the ship is surviving great pressures in a gas-giant then, yes, that IS stupid given the time-period and lack of shield. But, keep in mind, Berman and Braga where hardly known for keeping things consistent during Voyager and Enterprise when it came to things like that. (How many shuttles does Voyager have, now? Torpedoes? Why does the holodeck have an independent power system? (Oh! So we can use it but not need to worry about conserving power for critical systems to get us home. I mean we don't want to prevent ourselves from doing holodeck episdoes!)
I had hope that, on some level, Abrams "got" Trek and knew that it was never about effects and visuals but about telling stories. Having characters be interesting and dealing with present-day issues in a futuristic setting. Look at TWK and TUC both movies that are often lauded and both are movies that hardly relied on effects and action scenes to do their good work as they're movies driven by character and story. And, yes, both relied on effects during the climatic endings but only after story and setting up a situation. Not because of just the hell of it.
I'm not going to excited over a trailer showing me cool-looking visuals. (Oh! Kirk falling over a ledge and holding on by his
fingertips. I've NEVER seen that before!* (*=Since 2009)
Oh! The Enterprise rising slowly out of a non-space environment! How cool! I've not seen that before!* (*=Since 2009)
Oh! Cool! An enemy who wants vengeance on Earth for mysterious reasons! How unique!* (*=Ignoring, ST=2009, Star Trek Nemesis.)
I had just hoped for more out of this movie after 2009. Which I DID like. But, really, right now it looks like it's not going to be too vastly different but granting I've not much at all to go on. I'll still see it, and I've not nearly the number of problems with 2009 as others do. It's flawed but I can accept it as its own thing that has no impact on the Trek I know and love, but I just wanted, I dunno, more than neat-looking visuals.
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that's probably why it's called a teaser trailer (or in this case, an "announcement trailer"). It's not supposed to give you an in-depth synopsis of the story. It's just supposed to give you a taste of what's to come to build expectation.
Obviously that didn't work for you, but as we say on Earth, c'est la vie.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that's probably why it's called a teaser trailer (or in this case, an "announcement trailer"). It's not supposed to give you an in-depth synopsis of the story. It's just supposed to give you a taste of what's to come to build expectation.
Obviously that didn't work for you, but as we say on Earth, c'est la vie.
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater
The ship rises out of the water nine minutes into the film. Thus the argument that the whole film is ALL effects and no substance is utter shite, particularly after the last one already showed us there's more to nuTrek than 'splosions.
The ship rises out of the water nine minutes into the film. Thus the argument that the whole film is ALL effects and no substance is utter shite, particularly after the last one already showed us there's more to nuTrek than 'splosions.
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater
I love him.
I love him.
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater
You're exactly right. Trailers are used to get you excited to see the movie. They are not going to tell you what the story is going to be about. They want you to go to the movie to find that out.
You're exactly right. Trailers are used to get you excited to see the movie. They are not going to tell you what the story is going to be about. They want you to go to the movie to find that out.
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater
If they don't shut down warp and impulse drives, vent the warp plasma, put the inertial dampeners to full power, send emergency buoyancy aids to the transporter rooms, activate the subaqueous thrusters, extend the stern propeller, unload the torpedo bays and put the phasers offline, I'm walking out of the cinema.
If they don't shut down warp and impulse drives, vent the warp plasma, put the inertial dampeners to full power, send emergency buoyancy aids to the transporter rooms, activate the subaqueous thrusters, extend the stern propeller, unload the torpedo bays and put the phasers offline, I'm walking out of the cinema.
Similar threads
