Description of the teaser trailer...SPOILERS, Dude
- Thread starter Admiral Buzzkill
- Start date
Here's something, though: isn't linking the construction of the E so closely with late 1960s space program sound bites falling into the very nostalgia trap so many posters around here so vociferously oppose? It's not like the opening of ENT, which showed exploration from the high seas through the ISS and into the 22nd Century (a great concept, lousy theme notwithstanding--pity they included no Russian footage); this is all 1960s. Personally, I dig it, as Trek to me is about the 1960s far more than its about the 23rd Century, just as Philip Dick's novels are about the US in the 1960s and 1970s and not whatever half-baked (meant lovingly) future world he put them in. But I know many around here don't share that view.
So... what gives?
Oh, and the Enterprise was constructed in orbit under the authority of the San Francisco Navy Yard, which is why the plaque says San Francisco. This isn't rationalizing or ret-conning, it's what Roddenberry said. He was adamant that she was built in space, said it many times. It isn't technically canon but it is hardly fanon, either. At the very least, it is lore. At most, it is part of Roddenberry's intent all the way through the production of the series and TMP.
So... what gives?
Oh, and the Enterprise was constructed in orbit under the authority of the San Francisco Navy Yard, which is why the plaque says San Francisco. This isn't rationalizing or ret-conning, it's what Roddenberry said. He was adamant that she was built in space, said it many times. It isn't technically canon but it is hardly fanon, either. At the very least, it is lore. At most, it is part of Roddenberry's intent all the way through the production of the series and TMP.
Ah, conceited Star Trek fans... pretty sure I've said this before: "The General Audience" aren't the dumb lugs some of us 'fans' take'm to be.
I hardly think historical references, linked to JFK at that would be "Inside Trek" as it were...
Sharr
Not "Inside Trek" but backward-looking--"Do you remember the sixties? Paramount and Bad Robot do. Who can forget this ditty?"*
Now a teaser trailer showing us nothing but, say, Idris Elba fussing with a bunch of computer computer components and saying, at the end, "The duotronic system is ready for installation"? Now that would be "Inside Trek."
*Remember, though, this is exactly what I want, the Star Trek equivalent of Grindhouse, if you will. Of course, we saw how well that fared...
Now a teaser trailer showing us nothing but, say, Idris Elba fussing with a bunch of computer computer components and saying, at the end, "The duotronic system is ready for installation"? Now that would be "Inside Trek."
*Remember, though, this is exactly what I want, the Star Trek equivalent of Grindhouse, if you will. Of course, we saw how well that fared...
Hardly backward thinking - I mean from what I gather the words are about looking ahead, JFK and all that. Not a bad thing. Simply cause the speeches are from the 60's doesn't make them "backward" by any means if their message is relateble to none Trek fans (as this whole teaser seems to be from what I read) as well as stirring.
Its about the words and their message not that they're from the Sixties which count here.
Sharr
That's a valid interpretation.
The actual quote by JFK in his Rice University speech is a little different from what is being quoted in reference to this story --
It really does capture the Cold War aspect of the Space Race -- and Star Trek -- very well.
It really does capture the Cold War aspect of the Space Race -- and Star Trek -- very well.
Indeed. I should hasten to add to my last post that Star Trek can be a floor wax and a dessert topping--that is, it can be Janus-like, giving us a vision of a future that will never be (as no SF future will ever be) while giving us a view on a facet of the past as it saw itself. I've made it pretty clear that, if we have to have yet more Trek, I'd much rather it be Mad Men in space than "updated" so that we can pretend that 1968's future is really our future. The expiration date for that was nigh back in 1979 and that was a long time ago.
Oh My!...I worked at that shipyard in Newport News, Virginia for 22 years. Most of it was spent as a welder in that very dry dock under that gantry crane. It is dry dock number 12.
In Area 51, right?
Area 42, not 51, so Bob didn't lie.
1. Joe Six Pack won't know it's Star Trek 'till the end of the teaser ( heh heh heh heh heh ) sneaky JJ real sneaky.
2. It'll have that whole 60's vibe with the JFK speech.
3. None of this footage will be in the movie itself.
- W -
* Who's not worried about anything to do with the film *
1. Joe Six Pack won't know it's Star Trek 'till the end of the teaser ( heh heh heh heh heh ) sneaky JJ real sneaky.
2. It'll have that whole 60's vibe with the JFK speech.
3. None of this footage will be in the movie itself.
- W -
* Who's not worried about anything to do with the film *
Yes, but like JFK, Star Trek is looking ahead - from the sixties. We're talking about JFK here - his oft-imitated voice is immediately recognisable and he's an icon of that decade.
Which may not be a bad thing. It may be that they're intentionally setting the show in context a little bit, I don't know.
Could be. Not a bad thing at all. Most none fans can get that easily enough I think.
Speaking for myself its not "looking backward" I'm concerned with that's not a problem. Its more about being to much "inside Trek" and myopic in scope of what Star Trek could be all about. This doesn't seem to have that issue which is good.
Sharr
Nobody's saying that the Enterprise, by itself, is designed for atmospheric flight, or by ANY means of "takeoff and landing."
Even... just supposing... if the ship was completely built planetside, it might be TOWED into orbit. It could, theoretically, be built in some giant scaffold.
I still believe that the subsections are built planetside and towed to orbit for integration and final outfitting. Because that's the ONLY way that the "San Francisco Yards" makes any sense.
That, and the fact that there's a REAL PLACE called the "San Francisco Naval Yards," just like there's a real place called the Golden Gate Bridge, or a real place called San Francisco for that matter.
You can argue that there's no canon evidence that it's the SAME SFNY, but it's much harder to argue that it wasn't the original INTENTION that it be the same SFNY.
Not directly... but it would be easy to figure it out.
All you've gotta do is figure out what the aircraft Capt. Christopher was flying (I'm thinking it was an F-101, but I might be mistaken), find out the maximum operational ceiling for that aircraft (since it's no longer an aircraft we fly, that info should no longer be classified)... in the episode, Capt. Christopher is near his maximum ceiling when it spots Enterprise (thats why, I always assumed, he was unable to climb to the same altitude as Enterprise before it started it's own ascent) He was about a half-mile below the Enterprise, and about the same distance behind it. So add that amount to the max operational ceiling for that airplane and voila... you know where the Enterprise was.
"I was there in the San Francisco Navy Yards when her unit components were built."
-Commodore Robert April, The Counter Clock Incident
-Commodore Robert April, The Counter Clock Incident
Well, you KNOW that people will just respond to that by saying that the animated stuff isn't "canon." (Not that I agree...)
Similar threads
- Poll
