Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater?

[Nerys Myk]

Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

Just wait until the wagon train shows up . . . .

I think that was Battlestar Galactica...

You don't know?

Gene Roddenberry originally presented the Trek concept as "Wagon Train to the stars". (Wagon Train was a weekly TV series about America's cowboy era, with people moving west as part of a Wagon Train. So many people, so many stories, you never knew who or what might show up next.)

I did. That's why I used the and followed it with play on the "get the wagons in a circle" bit from far too many Westerns.

 

[jpch]

Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

Well Voyager in season 5 was referenced to be able to go under water with some modification,the Delta Flyer also did go underwater. but since the new movies are less technical and more action they might throw a few words about the subject.

 

[YARN]

Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

Let's see.

It can materialize matter just about anywhere one could want.

It can travel faster than light.

It has particle weapons.

It can fly close to the Sun.

It can fly through pea-soup nebulas.

But it can't get wet?

 

[jpch]

Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

Let's see.

It can materialize matter just about anywhere one could want.

It can travel faster than light.

It has particle weapons.

It can fly close to the Sun.

It can fly through pea-soup nebulas.

But it can't get wet?

haha that is so true

 

[Arpy]

Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

No. It mustn't get wet. Nor should it be exposed to tooo bright a light, and under NO circumstances are you to feed its core additional antimatter after midnight!

I mean duh. Obviously.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

No. It mustn't get wet. Nor should it be exposed to tooo bright a light, and under NO circumstances are you to feed its core additional antimatter after midnight.

Shatner has some experience with gremlins:

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

It seems that no one can point out even reasonable issues with the new holy of holies. Any attempt to do so will be met with a star ship load of examples of past ludicrous complaints presumably trying to imply they are all on the same level.

It is not unreasonable to question if a star ship can exist underwater. The pressures involved are enormous and there is no reason any form of flying object should normally be designed to cope with them.

Now maybe there is a way for the Enterprise to operate in water but I have no problem with anyone who is not prepared to sacrifice their reason on the alter of the modern obsession with "Cindy Lauper Trek": Fans just want to have fun (AT ANY COST). So can we avoid this silly self-indulgent ridicule (or at least restrict it to things you are sure deserve it)? Such rampant anti-intellectualism really isn't a good look.

I think it's just a matter of seeing Star Trek for what it really is, i.e. fun, occasionally smart space opera, instead of believing the self-perpetuating myths which see it as first-class cerebral science-fiction.

If your suspension of disbelief can't stand the thought of the Enterprise going underwater, it means that the whole of Star Trek has to be rewritten in order to accommodate the kind of critical thinking you're advocating. In the end, I think that would be futile and won't make Star Trek any better.

 

[22 Stars]

Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

one word... Midichlorians.

 

[Franklin]

Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

In the context of the 1960s technology when TOS was conceived, the idea of the Enterprise soaring through the atmosphere without problems and diving underwater might seem cartoonish to many viewers.

These days, some military aircraft are so non-aerodynamic they would fall from the sky like rocks if it weren't for the computers keeping them airborne. So in that context, a starship 200 years from now that can both easily fly through the atmosphere and even go under water seems at least plausible.

I suppose part of updating Trek is keeping ahead of what may be possible or at least realistic without being silly.

 

[Rhaven]

Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

Mr Scott will just make some adjustments and, POOF! the ship will be able to withstand the pressures of being under water.
He really should be called Saint Scott, as he pulls off miracle after miracle.

 

[mos6507]

Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

What's there to explain?

Exactly, can't even have a nice money shot without someone complaining. From what we know of the 9 minute trailer this is the Enterprise's big entrance in the movie, so why not do it in style?

Because, um, it's a stupid idea that only makes sense for visual impact?

 

[mos6507]

Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

I think it's just a matter of seeing Star Trek for what it really is, i.e. fun, occasionally smart space opera, instead of believing the self-perpetuating myths which see it as first-class cerebral science-fiction.

Which is the same argument that SW Prequel apologists used. Let's tear down the originals in order to make the new ones look better in comparison.

 

[BillJ]

Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

What's there to explain?

Exactly, can't even have a nice money shot without someone complaining. From what we know of the 9 minute trailer this is the Enterprise's big entrance in the movie, so why not do it in style?

Because, um, it's a stupid idea that only makes sense for visual impact?

We won't know whether it makes sense or not until we know the reason it was done.

 

[BillJ]

Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

I think it's just a matter of seeing Star Trek for what it really is, i.e. fun, occasionally smart space opera, instead of believing the self-perpetuating myths which see it as first-class cerebral science-fiction.

Which is the same argument that SW Prequel apologists used. Let's tear down the originals in order to make the new ones look better in comparison.

Funny, I still enjoy my Trek just fine.

 

[JarodRussell]

Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

I'd be more interested in the explanation for why the Enterprise even needs to go underwater.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

Which is the same argument that SW Prequel apologists used. Let's tear down the originals in order to make the new ones look better in comparison.

I'm not tearing down anything. I love Star Trek. But it's not as highbrown as some people make it out to be.

 

[BillJ]

Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

I'd be more interested in the explanation for why the Enterprise even needs to go underwater.

This is what I want. I don't care about the technobabble, I just want there to be an actual mission reason for it.

 

[Ovation]

Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

I saw the nine-minute preview the other night and it took very little effort to infer why it was underwater, without an explicit explanation. I actually prefer it when films don't stop and have a character engage in lengthy exposition to "fill in the blanks"--I can do that just fine, thanks.

Also, I think worrying about whether it can survive a few dozen meters below the surface of a large body of water, in light of all the other rather fantastical things the Enterprise (in each of its iterations) has already done, is rather absurd on the face of it. The ship is a prop in service to the story--it can do whatever the story calls upon it to do. As it always has been.

 

[BillJ]

Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

I saw the nine-minute preview the other night and it took very little effort to infer why it was underwater, without an explicit explanation.

Do tell...

 

[Ovation]

Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

But then I would be engaging in the kind of exposition I usually complain about when it comes from characters.

Spoiler: possible spoiler about 9 minute intro to new Trek film

Kirk and McCoy are running away from the natives wearing some sort of costume that hides their appearance completely (until late into the running away), so they don't want to be seen. Kirk is carrying something (a scroll of some sort) that the natives desperately want back (hence the chase) and that is deliberate as Kirk announces via communicator to both the Enterprise and the shuttlecraft that the natives are out of the immediate "kill zone"). The shuttlecraft experiences problems coping with the volcanic emissions and Sulu and Uhura are forced to abandon the craft while Kirk and McCoy are forced to jump into the water to escape being seen clearly by the natives. Aboard the Enterprise, we learn via dialogue that Spock cannot be beamed out directly from the volcano to their position because of some sort of magnetic field interference (what? a planet with an environmental component that interferes with the transporter? How could Abrams violate canon like that? ).

Inference: The field that interferes with the transporter could also wreak havoc with sensors (quite likely as sensors and transporter seem to work in conjunction), so the ship must be much closer than usual to the planet. Hiding underwater is easiest way to hide from the natives.

Simple, really.