Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by draderman, May 28, 2013.
And yet they still managed to get a ton of things wrong, or ignore them because story > logic.
No. That was never what Star Trek was about.
The rest of your post is just as pointlessly nitpick-y as it is nerd-raging.
None of the points you mentioned have anything to do with what makes a movie good. It's all just window-dressing.
I listen to what other people say, I consider what they say, and, I ask myself, does it make sense not to me, but to society as a whole? I can see where Plinkett is going, and I can see where others are going, for I see this general trend in entertainment. I can relate to what is happening now to what was happening in the fifties. Movies dominated the visual medium for the first half of the 20th century. Then, with the advent of TV, for movies to be profitable, they had to change, and change they did. Movies today are competing with so many different visual media, and these visual media are influencing one another. So, the criteria for what makes a movie good in 1979 - the year the first ST movie came out - is not the same today. Translation: What makes a movie good? That changes with the times and with peoples' expectations.
I was reading Aristotle's On Rhetoric, where he discusses briefly the transition from one style of play writing to another style of play writing. We can see that shift, from Aeschylus' plays to Euripides' plays. The writing became less bombastic, more natural. While the older books, films, and music are being read in school, so that we can be educated and know something of our origins, it is the newer stuff that interests people. This process is happening to Trek. To appeal to a newer audience, CBS invested money into adding new special effects to the first series so as to make it appealing to the younger generations who didn't grow up with it.
I know what Star Trek was about - or what I have read it to about - and that was about people settling the frontier. Star Trek was coming up in a time when Westerns were big, on TV and on movies. Yes, they did consult science experts, just as the people involved in the latest movies did, and did write stories that would appeal to a wide audience. They created compromises so that they wouldn't go over budget - the transporter was created for that reason.
I am reading people arguing over two words uttered by a single character. This is nit-picking to an extreme. I doubt the writers spent as much time as people here are doing about these two words, I believe they were working long hours to craft the story, and mistakes like this crept into the story, and the mistake was not noticed by those involved in the making of this film.
That is one big post to just say the thread isn't worth your time.
It's in a fan's nature to nitpick and over-analyse.
And, when fans do nit-pick, which I think is pointless for it leads straight to a road to nowhere, other fans point their ''Vengeance'' phasers at them and blast them into oblivion.
All Trek shows, even TOS have always had problems with how long a turbolift ride is supposed to last. Granted, most of the time we usually see the turbolift taking too long to go five decks down or less, but I doubt Trek XI was the first time we saw someone's turbolift ride go too quickly.
Nah, it's easier to set phasers to "Meh" and let them seethe.
If they want to work themselves into a hypertensive stroke over a movie, it ain't my problem.
You mean the show where a transporter split Kirk into good and evil halves? Where they beamed an away team not just into an alternate universe, but into the very clothes of their counterparts? Where antimatter went from starship fuel ("The Naked Time") to the destroyer of the entire universe ("The Alternative Factor") and back again?
And you mean those technical manuals which were always ignored by the writers of the shows, and were always already inaccurate at their time of publication? The TNG manual which claimed phasers couldn't be fired at warp speed? The warp speed charts that bore zero resemblence to the speeds and distances covered on the shows? The technical manuals and chronology books that kept intentionally contradicting the older ones, to encourage fans to upgrade to the newest "correct" ones?
Watch this video, at 1:22. There's a accurate turbolift journey for you!
Turbolifts, like starships, move at the speed of plot.
Not to mention that none of those vaunted technical experts thought to use that hangar bay thingie that Matt Jeffries put on the end of the ship, or to come up with an in-story reason why it wasn't used....
The hangar bay wasn't going to be installed until Tuesday.
Come on now. That was a budget issue, not a writing issue.
And in real world usage it frequently refers to features not all that different from the saucer spine.
The neck of the ship, where in the TOS design the diagona jeffries tube was implied to be. Considering that pylon also connects the saucer section to the engineering section which contains both the main power plant for the entire vessel and those mysteriously deadly water turbines, that seems like a pretty logical place to put some critical component of the life support system.
They wrote a story that ignored it, and easily could've written one line to explain why it wasn't used.
And yet, here you are, nitpicking with the rest of us...
Maybe they considered the engineering section to be a nacelle itself, since the primary hull is the saucer.
Thank You Real World....
The Nacelle (/nəˈsɛl/ nə-SELL) is a cover housing (separate from the fuselage) that holds engines, fuel, or equipment on an aircraft. In some cases—for instance in the typical "Farman" type "pusher" aircraft, or the World War II-era P-38 Lightning—an aircraft's cockpit may also be housed in a nacelle, which essentially fills the function of a conventional fuselage. The covering is typically aerodynamically shaped.
^ That's what I had in mind, yes, except that starships do not have a "fuselage" and so the nacelle would be component that is not otherwise enclosed within the main hull. Seems to fit.
So I'll just assume the life support system is nestled somewhere around the shuttlebay, and call it a day.
[Converted to link. Images posted inline should be hosted on your own web space. - M']
The engineering section of the Enterprise has always been referred to as the "secondary" hull. That is why they call the saucer section the "primary" hull.
For the writers to refer to the secondary hull as a nacelle is silly. You don't have two nacelles attached, to a nacelle. sounds ridiculous.
Also "Behind the aft nacelle"... there is NOTHING. Isn't it like saying, "The air conditioning system in my mazda is located behind my rear bumper."
Separate names with a comma.