Give and take regarding the younger fans

[seigezunt]

obviously dumbed down for this 'MTV generation' who can't think

Uh, why do we keep referring to today's youth (and I assume you're talking about teenagers) as the "MTV generation" when MTV debuted in Nineteen Eighty Fr*cking One? I was only 11 when MTV first went on the air, and it had a far greater influence on my peers than it does on the current generation of youngsters. Members of the real "MTV generation" are in their 30s and 40s right now, if not older.

Sorry, just had to make that point. Proceed with the discussion.

It only demonstrates that complaints against the "MTV Generation" (or the "Star Wars Generation", if you will) have long passed well into the realm of kneejerk reactions and need not be taken very seriously. As for the supposedly hidebound over-40 Trek fans, we've had plenty of evidence that they're really not such a monolithic and irredeemably stodgy bunch as all that; in fact, quite a lot of us are looking forward to seeing how the movie turns out.

Sweeping generalizations rarely match the real world very well, or even the world of Star Trek fandom.

Indeed. I keep saying this over and over. I've been a fan since about 1973, and I can't wait for this movie.

 

[jamestyler]

The. Ship. Is. Built. On. The. Ground. Only for the kewl visual of Kirk riding up to it on is kewl motorcycle.

That pretty much sums up the entire problem with this movie.

If a film maker who's created a dramatic moment is seen doing something wrong, then theres no hope for the naysayers... how dare they chose story over technical fanwank!

It is getting a little frustrating and off putting that people (which I feel is a minority trying to shout over everone else) are getting tied up with silly things like this and a young man daring to use slang and downright refusing to see anything positive. All this based on clips shown to drag those outside our little circle into the cinema and show them a good movie. The hints of Kirks development from misfit to hero in progress are a sign of that.

 

[Lashmore]

*sigh* proves no one reads the full message anyway.

I never said all of any group was unwashed, smelly or anything, i also mentioned that I knew all weren't, I had just meant to say that those were the ones I had met, I know there's better I was just proving the generalisations made by some were false.

 

[3D Master]

The. Ship. Is. Built. On. The. Ground. Only for the kewl visual of Kirk riding up to it on is kewl motorcycle.

That pretty much sums up the entire problem with this movie.

If a film maker who's created a dramatic moment is seen doing something wrong, then theres no hope for the naysayers... how dare they chose story over technical fanwank!

It's not a dramatic moment, it's "What the hell is that shit!? This is ridiculous! Laughing now, totally out of the movie, this is horrible." moment.

It is getting a little frustrating and off putting that people (which I feel is a minority trying to shout over everone else) are getting tied up with silly things like this and a young man daring to use slang and downright refusing to see anything positive. All this based on clips shown to drag those outside our little circle into the cinema and show them a good movie. The hints of Kirks development from misfit to hero in progress are a sign of that.

Star Trek used to be something MORE than some cheap shit, who cares about anything series. It was based heavily in science; it wrote things in such a matter that it was something that it fit with technology, logic and science.

No more, it seems, Trek is now Trek Wars; all for the visual, to hell with any intelligence or logic, toss it out the window.

A film maker should be able to create a dramatic moment, without having to toss all sense of logic and intelligence on the garbage heap.

And if he can't - well, then he isn't very good.

 

[Bishbot]

Star Trek used to be something MORE than some cheap shit, who cares about anything series. It was based heavily in science; it wrote things in such a matter that it was something that it fit with technology, logic and science.

Yeah - it was based REALLY heavily in science... everyone knows that its extremely likely an alien will be able to breed with a human, everyone knows there's an energy barrier at the edge of the galaxy that can turn you into a godlike superman, every scientist will tell you that there's just hundreds of parallel Earths out there waiting to be discovered, even with the same CONTINENT structure as ours. Those are some very early episodes - I'm sure I could go on.

Face it, Star Trek was always based in fantasy, with a thin veneer of science - that's how you get the plot moving - its not a bad thing. Its just a shame when fans pick and choose which bits they have to fight their battles on.

 

[Amaris]

I'm among the oldest fans here; dunno if I'm actually the oldest. I was twelve when TOS premiered.

There are two major areas of complaint I'm seeing from long-time fans:

1) They've changed the way that "Star Trek" looks;
2) The movie is not respecting established events from previous Trek.

Complaint number two is way overblown by lots of folks, because most of the (at this point presumed) contradictions to "established events" are either not actually established outside the realms of auxiliary (so-called "non-canon") material - like the question of whether the Enterprise was built in space or on Earth - or are just contradictions to extrapolations from established events that have taken strong hold as expectations among some fans. Eliminate those categories and each person simply has to decide how objectionable they find the few real contradictions.

Complaint number one - well, for some people there's some congruence here with the second complaint: changing "the look" is itself contradicting "established events" and it's objectionable on that score. If that's not a problem in and of itself, though, then this complaint boils down entirely to subjective aesthetic preferences. There's no real ground for reasoning or compromise where that's concerned - if someone's favorite color is red you can't persuade them to prefer blue.

Holy crap, you're older than I thought!
Not saying it's a bad thing...

/runs away before Dennis gets his cane

J.

 

[3D Master]

Star Trek used to be something MORE than some cheap shit, who cares about anything series. It was based heavily in science; it wrote things in such a matter that it was something that it fit with technology, logic and science.

Yeah - it was based REALLY heavily in science... everyone knows that its extremely likely an alien will be able to breed with a human, everyone knows there's an energy barrier at the edge of the galaxy that can turn you into a godlike superman, every scientist will tell you that there's just hundreds of parallel Earths out there waiting to be discovered, even with the same CONTINENT structure as ours. Those are some very early episodes - I'm sure I could go on.

Face it, Star Trek was always based in fantasy, with a thin veneer of science - that's how you get the plot moving - its not a bad thing. Its just a shame when fans pick and choose which bits they have to fight their battles on.

None of those, however, contradict science, let alone logic, or the heart of the show that things will get better. (And quite frankly, they are NOT fantasy, at all, they are SCIENCE FICTION.) Fantasy is an entirely different thing.

A ship built on the ground however, violates all of that indeed.

 

[Rii]

None of those, however, contradict science, let alone logic, or the heart of the show that things will get better. (And quite frankly, they are NOT fantasy, at all, they are SCIENCE FICTION.) Fantasy is an entirely different thing.

A ship built on the ground however, violates all of that indeed.

Even if one grants that building a starship on the ground is needlessly inefficient, that in no way suggests that it's implausible. Many inefficiencies exist in modern naval shipbuilding that are tolerated and indeed encouraged in order to maintain a broad industrial base that can respond to increased shipbuilding requirements in times of war and continue to function in the event that certain facilities are destroyed.

 

[Bishbot]

Star Trek used to be something MORE than some cheap shit, who cares about anything series. It was based heavily in science; it wrote things in such a matter that it was something that it fit with technology, logic and science.

Yeah - it was based REALLY heavily in science... everyone knows that its extremely likely an alien will be able to breed with a human, everyone knows there's an energy barrier at the edge of the galaxy that can turn you into a godlike superman, every scientist will tell you that there's just hundreds of parallel Earths out there waiting to be discovered, even with the same CONTINENT structure as ours. Those are some very early episodes - I'm sure I could go on.

Face it, Star Trek was always based in fantasy, with a thin veneer of science - that's how you get the plot moving - its not a bad thing. Its just a shame when fans pick and choose which bits they have to fight their battles on.

None of those, however, contradict science, let alone logic, or the heart of the show that things will get better. (And quite frankly, they are NOT fantasy, at all, they are SCIENCE FICTION.) Fantasy is an entirely different thing.

A ship built on the ground however, violates all of that indeed.

Ok, so they decided in their story that because of futuristic building and launching practises, its more efficient to build the ship on the ground. I don't see how that's more of a leap than saying "luckily, for story purposes, an alien can mate with a human". Neither are particularly plausible, I grant you, but as you say, this is fiction, I don't see why one is fine and the other is a huge mistake.

 

[Devon]

A ship built on the ground however, violates all of that indeed.

Folks at a NASA forum I am part of see no problem with it for the most part, and laugh at the "science" Star Trek has always passed off anyway. Therefore the ship being built on the ground violates nothing except some Trekkies assumption.

 

[ITL]

If anyone bitches about the ship being built on the ground again I'll fucking well eat my own chin in despair. See if I don't.

 

[Knucles2]

Treknologicaly speaking gravity hasnt been an inhibiting force in most of the trek ive seen on screen. Starfleet has had artificial gravity for a long time. Building ships on the ground should be SOP . When complete, just hit the AG switch and float her into orbit. I'd pay a few bucks to see something like that up close
The only thing that might violate the dreaded "C" word is that, if it's so easy ( and presumably efficient ) to build these huge ships on the ground, then why have huge space stations to maintain them? Having orbital "drydocks" and huge "Starbases" that can hold several starships inside them would seem to be an unneccessary expence when you could just float them down to the dirt side yards...

 

[Kemaiku]

I'm 24, I was 6 when TNG started here in the UK and watched TOS from a young age, I've seen 4 of the 5 series during their first airing and the films from 6 onwards as soon as they were released.

I dunno when that puts me, I'm not an older Trekkie having been around in the 60's or 70's era of TOS, or the 80's revival but right at the beginning of the 90's. Which as far as I see it since I started with TNG doesn't make me a newbie Trekkie either.

I don't like the movie, from what I've seen and admittedly thats based on its appearance and the implications of its plot and aesthetics from the trailers. It looks significantly dumbed down, unnecessary and crass.

Throwing away all established Trek by having a run down mining barge go kamikazi on the Alpha Quadrant in the past helmed by some mutilated shit head Shinzon wannabe just because Abrams was too bored and insulting of the current Trekverse and wanted to reboot it in his mangled image, a deliberate deception for over two years, is not something I want to waste my time and money on.

So yes, if I am a "younger" Trekkie, then its safe to say not all of us are happy with this train wreck in progress either.

 

[jamestyler]

It's not a dramatic moment, it's "What the hell is that shit!? This is ridiculous! Laughing now, totally out of the movie, this is horrible." moment.

I'm pretty sure that backs up the second half of my post

Star Trek used to be something MORE than some cheap shit, who cares about anything series. It was based heavily in science; it wrote things in such a matter that it was something that it fit with technology, logic and science.

No more, it seems, Trek is now Trek Wars; all for the visual, to hell with any intelligence or logic, toss it out the window.

A film maker should be able to create a dramatic moment, without having to toss all sense of logic and intelligence on the garbage heap.

...again, you're talking about clips. CLIPS! Something that's been drawn to gathering (shock and horror) a GENERAL audience as well as the inner clique of nerds who'll go regardless.

You bypassed the story I mentioned and headed straight for science. Something which we haven't seen anything of, aside from story points no more ridicukous or unscientific than anything seen in TOS. Which to be fair is expected, things age and date and you can often tell the age of a sci fi by the science theory behind it. Just as much as you can tell by the set design, or the props.

Someones come along, thrown some money at the time that sparked up what became a franchise, figured 'this worked out well for us, lets do it again!' and those who feel resentful and angry about that don't admit it's their personal issues and would rather bash the guys who've raised this from the dead.

 

[3D Master]

None of those, however, contradict science, let alone logic, or the heart of the show that things will get better. (And quite frankly, they are NOT fantasy, at all, they are SCIENCE FICTION.) Fantasy is an entirely different thing.

A ship built on the ground however, violates all of that indeed.

Even if one grants that building a starship on the ground is needlessly inefficient, that in no way suggests that it's implausible. Many inefficiencies exist in modern naval shipbuilding that are tolerated and indeed encouraged in order to maintain a broad industrial base that can respond to increased shipbuilding requirements in times of war and continue to function in the event that certain facilities are destroyed.

And in 23rd century, space would be housing such a broad industrial base. Hell, we're readying to put such a broad industrial base in space today.

But, even that, is no argument, why not? So, where is this broad industrial base? Where are all the other ships in construction? Where is he massive fleet yard of hundreds if not thousands of ships that make up this broad industrial base?

It's just one ship, one construction site, in an isolated Iowan grass field friend.

Further, for there to be no such broad industrial base in space, it requires one of two or both requirements:

1. A collective irrational fear of space, and humanity wants to stay on a planet (which begs the question how we managed to colonized a 1,000 worlds and growing, or why we're even exploring, nobody would want to go (not to mention why we haven annihilated or attempted to every non-human species in sight)) showing a humanity that is totally uneducated; so uneducated, indeed, it practically has to be deliberate miss-education.

2. A collective apathy for anything to do with space, again humanity wants to stay on a planet (which gets us again to the same question).

Either option, is a DIStopia, a horror scenario for a future that I can't fathom, and is the exact opposite of what Star Trek is supposed to represent, it is taking the heart of what Star Trek is, rip it out, and trample beneath your feet.

Ok, so they decided in their story that because of futuristic building and launching practises, its more efficient to build the ship on the ground. I don't see how that's more of a leap than saying "luckily, for story purposes, an alien can mate with a human". Neither are particularly plausible, I grant you, but as you say, this is fiction, I don't see why one is fine and the other is a huge mistake.

Treknologicaly speaking gravity hasnt been an inhibiting force in most of the trek ive seen on screen. Starfleet has had artificial gravity for a long time. Building ships on the ground should be SOP . When complete, just hit the AG switch and float her into orbit. I'd pay a few bucks to see something like that up close
The only thing that might violate the dreaded "C" word is that, if it's so easy ( and presumably efficient ) to build these huge ships on the ground, then why have huge space stations to maintain them? Having orbital "drydocks" and huge "Starbases" that can hold several starships inside them would seem to be an unneccessary expence when you could just float them down to the dirt side yards...

And this is the problem; if you had ANY understanding of what space is - and is not - you would understand that it is literally impossible for a ground construction and launch to be more efficient; as a part of that, safer.

In fact, all those futuristic building capabilities, makes the gap between building in space and building on ground, only BIGGER when it comes to efficiency and safety; not smaller, let alone that ground-construction would surpass space construction. (ESPECIALLY the safer one, space construction will always be safer, so much safer.)

It will never happen.

A ship built on the ground however, violates all of that indeed.

Folks at a NASA forum I am part of see no problem with it for the most part, and laugh at the "science" Star Trek has always passed off anyway. Therefore the ship being built on the ground violates nothing except some Trekkies assumption.

Then those folks are that NASA forum are idiots. Of course, that's something everyone with a little bit of knowledge of science and keeping up with things would know.

The average NASA guy (not mention most scientists) wouldn't know science if it hit them in the head.

 

[ALF]

If anyone bitches about the ship being built on the ground again I'll fucking well eat my own chin in despair. See if I don't.

Flash forward a few months... news source:

"The premiere of the much anticipated Star Trek reboot starring Chris Pine as Captain Kirk and Zachary Quinto, Sylar from recently cancelled Heroes, hit movie screens Friday night. Although film critics hailed the drama and surprisingly intricate character driven performances and giving fans a dose of exhilarating Star Trek since 2004 laced with breaktaking visuals and non stop action, the film was universally panned as it depicted the highly ridiculous aspect of the Enterprise's construction... on the ground. Both hardcore fans and casual viewers alike were unable to look over this one small detail of the film. Star Trek is expected to screen for another week in theatres, when it will go straight to home video and purchase price from a discount bin."

 

[trevanian]

A ship built on the ground however, violates all of that indeed.

Folks at a NASA forum I am part of see no problem with it for the most part, and laugh at the "science" Star Trek has always passed off anyway. Therefore the ship being built on the ground violates nothing except some Trekkies assumption.

The trekkies that work at NASA's assumptions? This stuff is extrapolation from NASA, and from Brit Intplanetarsy Society, building in orbit. NASA's guy was the tech advisor (a serious contributor) on TMP.

Building on the ground flies in the face of ... never mind, 3dMaster above me nailed this just so RIGHT I can't improve on it.

 

[ITL]

If anyone bitches about the ship being built on the ground again I'll fucking well eat my own chin in despair. See if I don't.

Flash forward a few months... news source:

"The premiere of the much anticipated Star Trek reboot starring Chris Pine as Captain Kirk and Zachary Quinto, Sylar from recently cancelled Heroes, hit movie screens Friday night. Although film critics hailed the drama and surprisingly intricate character driven performances and giving fans a dose of exhilarating Star Trek since 2004 laced with breaktaking visuals and non stop action, the film was universally panned as it depicted the highly ridiculous aspect of the Enterprise's construction... on the ground. Both hardcore fans and casual viewers alike were unable to look over this one small detail of the film. Star Trek is expected to screen for another week in theatres, when it will go straight to home video and purchase price from a discount bin."

Pass the ketchup...

*nom nom nom nom*

 

[Devon]

I don't like the movie, from what I've seen and admittedly thats based on its appearance and the implications of its plot and aesthetics from the trailers. It looks significantly dumbed down, unnecessary and crass.

Translations: You know next to nothing about it and made the conclusion that you don't like the movie and it is "significantly dumbed down?"

Throwing away all established Trek by having a run down mining barge go kamikazi on the Alpha Quadrant in the past helmed by some mutilated shit head Shinzon wannabe just because Abrams was too bored and insulting of the current Trekverse and wanted to reboot it in his mangled image, a deliberate deception for over two years, is not something I want to waste my time and money on.

So yes, if I am a "younger" Trekkie, then its safe to say not all of us are happy with this train wreck in progress either.

I always find it funny when there are a couple of people, against everyone else, who claim it to be a "trainwreck." If it is a "trainwreck," then you are obviously not riding the same train that others are.

 

[Kemaiku]

I gotta ask this.

A Constitution Class starship in the true timeline weighed in at 950,000 tonnes unladen. This new one looks heavier and larger. Now the construction facility would weigh a lot as well, possibly more than the ship again. One ship building yard could have in excess of 2 million tonnes bearing down, if there are several side by side, several million tonnes spread over not so many miles.

Iowa is farmland right? softsoil and lighter earth useful for farming and agricultural work, but how much would have to be done to sheer up that much land in terms of heavy foundations and measures against subsidence from that much mass, especially if they engage a subspace field and have a variable load effect.

Its a wonder the thing doesn't fucking keel over into the Earth. Much as I'd love that to happen.