Are we making two assumptions that might not be correct? (spoilers)

[digger]

1. From the trailer showing the Enterprise being built on Earth, I remember thinking continuity was being thrown out the window right then and there, knowing the original Enterprise was built in space. (I know some people say it was built in space while others say it was built on Earth but assembled in space--but that's not really the point of my post.) My point is, when Kirk is looking at the ship while on his motorcycle, when we see it being built on Earth, I don't recall every seeing the word "Enterprise" or designation "1701" anywhere on the ship. I only remember seeing them when we first see the ship in space. Could it be the ship Kirk was looking at was, in fact, NOT the Enterprise, but rather some other ship?

2. Lots of people are up in arms about Vulcan being destroyed; I know I was upon first viewing, but I've come to accept it and even appreciate it. However, perhaps the "Vulcan" that was destroyed in the new movie wasn't the same planet we've known from our reality. If memory serves from the new movie, wasn't the atmosphere blue in the scenes they showed on Vulcan? However, the Vulcan we know from our reality has a red (?) atmosphere, similar to Mars. (Please correct the color, if it's wrong, as I am color blind). Perhaps now that their planet is destroyed, all Vulcans will move to a new planet, with a red atmosphere, which is the planet we know.

I'm very curious what people think about these two points.

thanks,
mike.

 

[Star Treks]

Re: Are we making two assumptions that might not be correct? (spoilers

I think it's fairly clear that it's not the Enterprise being built on earth, as he seems to be looking at it only a very short time before he flies up to the real-deal Enterprise up in space. It does look like a ship of the same or a similar class, though.

As for your second idea, it's possible but I don't think it's what the writers are intending. That was the real Vulcan that we know and love being blasted from existence in this new timeline.

 

[AJBryant]

Re: Are we making two assumptions that might not be correct? (spoilers

I think it's fairly clear that it's not the Enterprise being built on earth, as he seems to be looking at it only a very short time before he flies up to the real-deal Enterprise up in space. It does look like a ship of the same or a similar class, though.

Ummm... THREE YEARS pass.

 

[Star Treks]

Re: Are we making two assumptions that might not be correct? (spoilers

I think it's fairly clear that it's not the Enterprise being built on earth, as he seems to be looking at it only a very short time before he flies up to the real-deal Enterprise up in space. It does look like a ship of the same or a similar class, though.

Ummm... THREE YEARS pass.

I guess I was a bit confused. I was mixing up him joining Starfleet (Academy) with him going to the actual Enterprise. You're right.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

Re: Are we making two assumptions that might not be correct? (spoilers

It was the Constitution being built IMO.

After Kirk looks at it he joins Starfleet and then 3 years later onboard the Bridge of the Enterprise we're made aware from Pike that she's new. By the looks of the ship Kirk was looking at it was going to be built a heck of a lot earlier than 3 years.

So Kirk was looking at the Constitution and the Enterprise started being built maybe 2 years later whilst Kirk was in his 2nd academy year.

Of course the writers probably want us to think it's the Enterprise because the first ever trailer that came out made that clear but I prefer to think of it as the Constitution.

 

[M'Sharak]

Re: Are we making two assumptions that might not be correct? (spoilers

1. From the trailer showing the Enterprise being built on Earth, I remember thinking continuity was being thrown out the window right then and there, knowing the original Enterprise was built in space. (I know some people say it was built in space while others say it was built on Earth but assembled in space--but that's not really the point of my post.) My point is, when Kirk is looking at the ship while on his motorcycle, when we see it being built on Earth, I don't recall every seeing the word "Enterprise" or designation "1701" anywhere on the ship.

I didn't spot it on my first viewing, but I'm told that the 'NCC-1701' marking is briefly visible on the ship under construction as the shuttle is taking off from the Riverside shipyard, bearing Kirk, Uhura and McCoy.

 

[Gepard]

Re: Are we making two assumptions that might not be correct? (spoilers

I didn't spot it on my first viewing, but I'm told that the 'NCC-1701' marking is briefly visible on the ship under construction as the shuttle is taking off from the Riverside shipyard, bearing Kirk, Uhura and McCoy.

It is. Side of the nacelle, just as the shuttle carrying cadets flies past and the scene fades out. It's hard to spot, because the lens flare from the sun is washing out the frame, but it's there.

 

[Photoman15]

Re: Are we making two assumptions that might not be correct? (spoilers

Actually, when Kirk's shuttle is leaving for Cadet recruitment, you can see 1701 (I think it was the whole number, I'll have to check). If only part of the number, then it could be any ship.

As for 2, I agree. The Vulcan we saw in TOS could be "New Vulcan".

 

[scottydog]

Re: Are we making two assumptions that might not be correct? (spoilers

It would be nice to think that Nero accidentally destroyed the wrong planet, but the fact that young Spock beamed down to rescue the council would suggest otherwise. But the color-of-the-sky discrepancy is intriguing.

Interesting how Abrams chose to break from canon by having a ship built on Earth. But his reasons were good -- young Kirk watching the ship, in awe, as it was being built made for a powerful scene.

 

[Sector 7]

Re: Are we making two assumptions that might not be correct? (spoilers

I do not have a problem either way. I think it more poetic to believe it is the Big E at Riverside Shipyard. Since we see it three years later as a newly completed ship, it is plausible that it is the Enterprise Kirk saw at Riverside. It takes years to build a seafaring ship; with all the technology involved it could take as long to built a starship.

As for Vulcan being destroyed, I think the message is: Things are different now. This will not be a rehash of TOS, but a new era where anything can happen and no one is 'safe'.

 

[Admiral Bear]

Re: Are we making two assumptions that might not be correct? (spoilers

But the color-of-the-sky discrepancy is intriguing.

We the fans know that Vulcan has/had *sniff sob * a red sky, but it's not something I would've expected Abrams, Orci or Kurtzman to have known. I suspect it's just a lack of research and knowledge on their part.

Or of course it could've been deliberate for a reason of which we've not yet been made aware. Although I don't think Orci ahd Kurtzman are quite that cunning.

 

[jswhitten]

Re: Are we making two assumptions that might not be correct? (spoilers

Interesting how Abrams chose to break from canon by having a ship built on Earth.

Was the original Enterprise built in space? I don't think there's a canon source for this either way.

Roddenberry said Enterprise was built on Earth, at Mare Island near San Francisco. If we were to accept this as canon, it's still not a continuity problem that it was built in Iowa, as this movie takes place in an alternate timeline.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

Re: Are we making two assumptions that might not be correct? (spoilers

Ever heard of red sky at night? how do we know what time of the Vulcan day we've always seen Vulcan? we might have always seen it at sunset and in the new film we see Vulcan at midday.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

Re: Are we making two assumptions that might not be correct? (spoilers

It would be nice to think that Nero accidentally destroyed the wrong planet, but the fact that young Spock beamed down to rescue the council would suggest otherwise. But the color-of-the-sky discrepancy is intriguing.

Ayel: "Uh.... yo Captain, sir, I think we just blew up the wrong planet."
Nero: "Really? Whoops." Waves down at debris. "Sorry guys, my mistake. Jolly good, let's go roast the real Vulcan now."
Ayel: "Yes, sir. Course set."
Nero: "Punch it."

The Narada takes off at ludicrous speed.

 

[jswhitten]

Re: Are we making two assumptions that might not be correct? (spoilers

But the color-of-the-sky discrepancy is intriguing.

Earth has a red sky too, sometimes, and blue at other times.

Since Vulcan has an oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere, the normal color for its sky would be blue, like Earth's. Particles in the air from huge sandstorms could color the sky red. This is actually why Mars's sky is reddish--without dust suspended in the atmosphere it would be a deep bluish color. So this movie just happens to take place at a time when there haven't been any large sandstorms on Vulcan recently.

 

[Trekker4747]

Re: Are we making two assumptions that might not be correct? (spoilers

1. From the trailer showing the Enterprise being built on Earth, I remember thinking continuity was being thrown out the window right then and there, knowing the original Enterprise was built in space. (I know some people say it was built in space while others say it was built on Earth but assembled in space--but that's not really the point of my post.) My point is, when Kirk is looking at the ship while on his motorcycle, when we see it being built on Earth, I don't recall every seeing the word "Enterprise" or designation "1701" anywhere on the ship. I only remember seeing them when we first see the ship in space. Could it be the ship Kirk was looking at was, in fact, NOT the Enterprise, but rather some other ship?

Kirk later goes into that very dock to enlist. When his shuttle leaves the camera pans up and we get a look at the nacelle. "NCC-1701"

2. Lots of people are up in arms about Vulcan being destroyed; I know I was upon first viewing, but I've come to accept it and even appreciate it. However, perhaps the "Vulcan" that was destroyed in the new movie wasn't the same planet we've known from our reality. If memory serves from the new movie, wasn't the atmosphere blue in the scenes they showed on Vulcan? However, the Vulcan we know from our reality has a red (?) atmosphere, similar to Mars. (Please correct the color, if it's wrong, as I am color blind). Perhaps now that their planet is destroyed, all Vulcans will move to a new planet, with a red atmosphere, which is the planet we know.

In the past, yes, Vulcan has usually had a red sky. But it also had runes and such that were said to be millenia old. I think we're fully supposed to infer that THE Vulcan is gone. Which is "OK" as far as messing with past Trek movies and series as this is established as a new timeline.

 

[Islander]

Re: Are we making two assumptions that might not be correct? (spoilers

However, the Vulcan we know from our reality has a red (?) atmosphere, similar to Mars. (Please correct the color, if it's wrong, as I am color blind).

No, it actually is yellow with purple dots...

 

[davejames]

Re: Are we making two assumptions that might not be correct? (spoilers

I do not have a problem either way. I think it more poetic to believe it is the Big E at Riverside Shipyard. Since we see it three years later as a newly completed ship, it is plausible that it is the Enterprise Kirk saw at Riverside. It takes years to build a seafaring ship; with all the technology involved it could take as long to built a starship.

As for Vulcan being destroyed, I think the message is: Things are different now. This will not be a rehash of TOS, but a new era where anything can happen and no one is 'safe'.

Well considering all the ways Abrams was trying to simplify and streamline everything for the general audience, I think it's highly unlikely that it WOULDN'T be the Enterprise we saw being built.

Especially since no mention was made in the movie of there being other Constitution-Class ships out there.

 

[pookha]

Re: Are we making two assumptions that might not be correct? (spoilers

question when amanda sees the beam isnt the sky more what we expect from vulcan?
i am trying to remember.
if so it could be the sky losing its traditional reddish color could be a result of the attack on the planet and the gravitaitonal changes.

oh yeah different planet but at times mars has had a blue sky.
http://mars-news.de/life/

 

[Peter the Younger]

Re: Are we making two assumptions that might not be correct? (spoilers

I do not have a problem either way. I think it more poetic to believe it is the Big E at Riverside Shipyard.

Somewhere, a fanboy is choking on his big mac, and sputtering, "Poetic? But it's wrong, wrong, wrong!" (gak)

Regarding Vulcan: Maybe the blue sky on Vulcan is just based on a correct understanding of what oxygen-nitrogen atmospheres are supposed to look like.