AFT NACELLE (Spoilers)
- Thread starter draderman
- Start date
I would be very surprised if these writers even know what a nacelle is.
"Nacelle...she was the old Uhura, right?"
Oh dear.
All because of a slight mix-up of terminology when the rest of both films are FILLED with references, easter eggs and homages that should more than satisfy Trek fans.
Nerd rage certainly is funny to watch.
LOL.
I was actually laughing as I typed my former post -- well, almost.
It *is* very pedantic, I'll give you that. And there may be a small measure of nerd rage there, too.
The thing is though, this is merely one issue amongst hundreds. It's a small one, yes, and if it were the only one, or one in a handful of gaffes, it might not warrant much comment, but -- in my opinion -- it isn't.
Also, we're all bloody nerds here, or we should be. "Trek lore" was perhaps the wrong term; "Trek minutiae" might be better (though, basic ship elements and layout, such as a ship typically having two nacelles -- one port, one starboard -- seem like Trek 101 to me).
I agree with Cryogenic. If you say 'port nacelle' when you mean 'starboard nacelle', that's a mistake. 'located behind the aft nacelle' is... I dunno what. But those sorts of maddening errors that seem less like simple mistakes and more like lazy technobabble from writers who don't care are the antimatter that fuels our collective nerd-rage. And that's why we're here. Stuff like that just shouldn't happen. I think I'll head down to engineering for a beer.
Oh dear.
All because of a slight mix-up of terminology when the rest of both films are FILLED with references, easter eggs and homages that should more than satisfy Trek fans.
Nerd rage certainly is funny to watch.
People get paid on IMDB for catching these things...
Which, if the impulse engine is housed in an armored compartment inside of the saucer section, would still qualify.
Not really. A nacelle is, by definition, a feature external (as a pod or gondola) to the main body to which it is attached.
Yes, like the engine Nacelles on the F-14 Tomcat, which are partially embedded in the fuselage and partially exposed.
Like this structure on the spine of the saucer section. A similar feature exists on the TOS Enterprise, yet to this day we have never really come up with terminology to describe it. "Aft nacelle" fits as well as anything else.
We're talking about Starfleet officers, here, not vengeful Cardassians.
No, it doesn't. Nacelle is not a Star Trek creation, it's a real word that actually means something. Even if "behind the aft nacelle" made some kind of sense, it would be open space, not something aboard the ship.
Good Lord, people. I think it's pretty obvious what happened. The writers needed a technobabble word, so they plugged "nacelle" in there. If they'd used "deflector", "power coupling" or "plasma conduit" we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.Oh, who am I kidding? Of course we would.
You're probably right. This particular example is still pretty damn sad because you don't need a copy of the Star Trek Encyclopedia to know it's BS, you only need a dictionary. One would expect better when the writers have three years to craft a coherent screenplay.
And they did. They're human, they will slip up every now and then. Not worth getting the pitch forks out over "aft nacelles." Seriously there have to be more important things in life to get upset about.
No.
Classic Trek was about people who consulted science experts to stay current with the latest developments. They were creating science fiction shows. They wrote technical manuals and blueprints. Focus groups were rarely involved.
New Trek is about people who create stories that meet an international demand for action-adventure stories. The stories have less Trek, and more excitement. Everything is hyper now. They are creating science fantasy. These people aren't creating technical manuals nor blueprints, nor are they encouraging efforts to explain the science in these films. And, the movies are now focus group. (Please don't call bull on that. There are articles out there about Paramount speaking to groups on what they wanted to see in the next film. If I can Google this, so can you.)
Well, this is what I got from watching Plinkett's review of Star Trek (2009) and my own observations.
There is a remarkable sequence in his review that shows the difference between the two.
In "By Any Other Name", we see an elevator ride where three of the characters are talking about plans to sabotage the Enterprise. Plinkett demonstrates the path of this elevator through the starship - the MSD, first shown in the series "Enterprise" - matches up with the motion of the elevator. it's extraordinary to the lengths that people on the Classic Trek went to creating a believable world.
Now, look at the first JJ Abrams film. Spock gets on a turbolift near the main shuttlebay, and arrives at the bridge in seconds. The key word is fluidity.
Hell, there is a homage within this movie to a Star Wars film. When they say "Punch It", this is a homage to one of the characters in SW saying the same exact thing. And, when Kirk is seeing the Enterprise for the first time, the people involved with the film called it the "Tatooine moment".
I have accepted and I am resigned to the fact that the people involved in New Trek are not the same as the people in Classic Trek. They saw, I believe, these two films as a shakedown cruise for the next Star Wars film.
Here is Plinkett review of Star Trek (2009). I have found it very enlightening.
http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-trek/star-trek-09/
He speaks about other important matters, like the alternate reality scenario.
Returning to the issue about aft nacelle, I think we should put as much effort into this issue as the writers did - which is to say, none at all.
New Trek is about people who create stories that meet an international demand for action-adventure stories. The stories have less Trek, and more excitement. Everything is hyper now. They are creating science fantasy. These people aren't creating technical manuals nor blueprints, nor are they encouraging efforts to explain the science in these films. And, the movies are now focus group. (Please don't call bull on that. There are articles out there about Paramount speaking to groups on what they wanted to see in the next film. If I can Google this, so can you.)
Well, this is what I got from watching Plinkett's review of Star Trek (2009) and my own observations.
There is a remarkable sequence in his review that shows the difference between the two.
In "By Any Other Name", we see an elevator ride where three of the characters are talking about plans to sabotage the Enterprise. Plinkett demonstrates the path of this elevator through the starship - the MSD, first shown in the series "Enterprise" - matches up with the motion of the elevator. it's extraordinary to the lengths that people on the Classic Trek went to creating a believable world.
Now, look at the first JJ Abrams film. Spock gets on a turbolift near the main shuttlebay, and arrives at the bridge in seconds. The key word is fluidity.
Hell, there is a homage within this movie to a Star Wars film. When they say "Punch It", this is a homage to one of the characters in SW saying the same exact thing. And, when Kirk is seeing the Enterprise for the first time, the people involved with the film called it the "Tatooine moment".
I have accepted and I am resigned to the fact that the people involved in New Trek are not the same as the people in Classic Trek. They saw, I believe, these two films as a shakedown cruise for the next Star Wars film.
Here is Plinkett review of Star Trek (2009). I have found it very enlightening.
http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-trek/star-trek-09/
He speaks about other important matters, like the alternate reality scenario.
Returning to the issue about aft nacelle, I think we should put as much effort into this issue as the writers did - which is to say, none at all.
Similar threads
