That's probably a post-hoc justification, of course. The Rule of Cool pretty much covers it.
Which isn't a bad thing. I think some Star Trek fans have forgotten that Trek is suppose to be fun.
That's probably a post-hoc justification, of course. The Rule of Cool pretty much covers it.
What is this "fun" you speak of? How can a movie be "fun"?That's probably a post-hoc justification, of course. The Rule of Cool pretty much covers it.
Which isn't a bad thing. I think some Star Trek fans have forgotten that Trek is suppose to be fun.
Are the dune buggies in NEM excused by the Rule of Cool?
Only if they had been hover dune buggiesAre the dune buggies in NEM excused by the Rule of Cool?
Partially. If the buggies had actually BEEN cool, it would have gone over a lot better.Are the dune buggies in NEM excused by the Rule of Cool?
Nonsensical does not equal fun. And the bottom line is, there was no reason at all for the Enterprise to dive underwater. None at all. I don't care about the science of it or anything, but there should have been some attempt to provide a story reason for why they submerged the ship. Which there wasn't.
The absurdity IS the point. I've just rewatched the film and I was reminded of an aspect of it that I like more each time I view it (same goes for the first): somethings are left unexplained. There is no need to provide a "story reason" for the ship being underwater. We are simply coming into the story mid-stream. We can use our imaginations to come up with all sorts of reasons why it's there (as have been offered here and elsewhere) or we can ignore the reason and "go with the story as is". When did it become necessary for every single action or situation in a movie to have an explicit explanation in the movie? I absolutely HATE when movies do that--I'm not an infant, I can reason things out for myself.
Agreed - one of the things I HATED about TNG era Trek (in TV or Film) was the 2 minute dissertation of:
"If we fire a stream of <insert magic particle's name> at <time x>; we can drop their shields..."
and after Picard (or whoever) says; "Yes, that'll work"
We go through a scene of them essentially repeating the exact same dialogue:
"It's <time x>!"
"Firing stream of <insert magic particle's name>!"
"Their shields are dropping..."
Ugh! (And they did it time and time again in 24th century era TV shows and films.)
TOS did that on a few very rare occasions, but overall, didn't worry about laying out EVERY LITTLE DETAIL (and then repeating that detail again) during it's era, and I never had a problem with that.
Nonsensical does not equal fun. And the bottom line is, there was no reason at all for the Enterprise to dive underwater. None at all. I don't care about the science of it or anything, but there should have been some attempt to provide a story reason for why they submerged the ship. Which there wasn't.
The absurdity IS the point. I've just rewatched the film and I was reminded of an aspect of it that I like more each time I view it (same goes for the first): somethings are left unexplained. There is no need to provide a "story reason" for the ship being underwater. We are simply coming into the story mid-stream. We can use our imaginations to come up with all sorts of reasons why it's there (as have been offered here and elsewhere) or we can ignore the reason and "go with the story as is". When did it become necessary for every single action or situation in a movie to have an explicit explanation in the movie? I absolutely HATE when movies do that--I'm not an infant, I can reason things out for myself.
Agreed - one of the things I HATED about TNG era Trek (in TV or Film) was the 2 minute dissertation of:
"If we fire a stream of <insert magic particle's name> at <time x>; we can drop their shields..."
and after Picard (or whoever) says; "Yes, that'll work"
We go through a scene of them essentially repeating the exact same dialogue:
"It's <time x>!"
"Firing stream of <insert magic particle's name>!"
"Their shields are dropping..."
Ugh! (And they did it time and time again in 24th century era TV shows and films.)
TOS did that on a few very rare occasions, but overall, didn't worry about laying out EVERY LITTLE DETAIL (and then repeating that detail again) during it's era, and I never had a problem with that.
The Enterpise under/rising from the water was also used excessively in the adverts, so shouldn't it have stopped being cool before the film came out too?^ Not to mention that it wasn't a surprise to anybody, seeing as they used that in practically all the trailers. By the time we actually saw the movie, the buggies weren't cool anymore.
I think the same can be said of the STID intro to a lesser extend. I love pretty much everything about it, it's the most Star Trek thing they've done up to this point in all the movies. A new alien species, strange planet, a dilemma for the crew to deal with that is both plot and character driven. The only thing that bugs me is the nonsensical "Enterprise is underwater" not because I don't think starships have the capability to handle it, but because it really does not make sense. You want to conceal the huge starship? Then don't take it underwater. Keep it in high orbit, or by the planets moon if it has one.
And if you want to have some starship porn shot of the Enterprise doing some kind of penetrative maneuver, easy, have her bank down out of orbit, down through the atmosphere, and head towards the volcano. The need to be in close range because of the volcanic eruptions would still work as a legit excuse.![]()
Shields are down to seventy percent! Shields are down to seventy...I hated it when the changed the lyrics of "99 Bottles of Beer on the Wall" to "Their Shields Are Down to XX Percent."
Shields are down to seventy percent! Shields are down to seventy...I hated it when the changed the lyrics of "99 Bottles of Beer on the Wall" to "Their Shields Are Down to XX Percent."
Incoming fire! Brace for impact! Shields are down to sixty percent!
Shields are down to sixty percent! Shields are down to sixty...
Divert auxiliary power to shields! Shields are down to fifty percent!
Shields are down to fifty percent! Shields are down to fifty...
Try remodulating the emitter arrays! Shields are down to forty percent!
Shields are down to forty percent! Shields are down to forty...
Recalibrate shield nutations! Shields are down to thirty percent!
Shields are down to thirty percent! Shields are down to thirty...
Try to match polarity with their weapon's phase modulation signature! Shields are down to twenty percent!
Shields are down to twenty percent! Shields are down to twenty...
Reconfigure the main deflector to emit a tachyon pulse that should force their emitter crystals to reverse polarity! Shields are down to ten percent!
Shields are down to ten percent! Shields are down to ten...
Hail them, tell them we mean them no harm... Shields are down to one percent!
Shields are down to one percent! Shields are down to one...
Let's reconfigure the tractor beam emitters to generate a coherent graviton pu--BOOOOOOMMMMM!!!
Shields are down to zero percent.![]()
Well if you're looking for realism, science fiction probably isn't your best bet. As technology gets better things have a tendency to get smaller, not larger.
Prime Universe Star Trek had ships that dwarf anything in STID. When Archer goes to the future, he's aboard the Enterprise J - probably the biggest Enterprise and maybe biggest Federation ship ever seen. Thing is two miles long!They are not fucking huge, they are ridiculous.
But hey, let's face it, it is now "canon", so ST is now ridiculous, and you liked it, you embraced it, it is over and done for ST.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.