Great alternate movie shots

[JJohnson]

I know this was posted elsewhere, but this is a great shot:

http://www.wired.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/riverside-1024x481.jpg

Oh, what could've been.

 

[Marsden]

There must have been some kind of "shift of concept" somewhere along the line, because it was my understanding that starships did not and could not land on planets and when Voyager could it was really something of note.

Enterprise didn't land on any planets until TSFS. Enterprise D landed on Veridan III. Both not good situations.

 

[MacLeod]

Landed implies in a controlled manner. Crash landed might be more accurate.

 

[BillJ]

There must have been some kind of "shift of concept" somewhere along the line, because it was my understanding that starships did not and could not land on planets and when Voyager could it was really something of note.

Just an artificial limitation put in because the effects cost would've been too high. In universe, a society that has the technology to manipulate matter and gravity shouldn't have too big an issue landing and putting starships into orbit from the ground.

 

[Gary Mitchell]

If it's an artificial limitation then why the orbital drydock in TMP? If Enterprise could land on Earth, why have it in space where spacesuits are needed?

 

[Warped9]

There must have been some kind of "shift of concept" somewhere along the line, because it was my understanding that starships did not and could not land on planets and when Voyager could it was really something of note.

Just an artificial limitation put in because the effects cost would've been too high. In universe, a society that has the technology to manipulate matter and gravity shouldn't have too big an issue landing and putting starships into orbit from the ground.

No, it was a well thought out and reasonable line of thinking. The limit of period f/x actually served to come up with something that made more sense.

 

[Vger23]

This is great. I haven't heard the "JJ Enterprise was built on Earth and not in space, and that's stupid" argument for a few weeks now. I thought I was going to go a month without hearing it for the first time since 2009.

 

[JoeZhang]

I don't get why it makes more sense in a made-up universe where people can transport matter and control energy to such a degree that they can travel faster than light and also in time.

Getting a space-ship off the ground is so trivial in relation - it's not worth discussion (which is my polite way of saying I don't want a reply where you explain why it's more rational - I've heard it 100s of times before 101 isn't going to change my mind).

 

[BillJ]

No, it was a well thought out and reasonable line of thinking. The limit of period f/x actually served to come up with something that made more sense.

It was an answer to a dilemma in 1966. It is now 2015, and even the within the bounds of the universe as it existed then, it really made no sense. It can handle incredible strains of planets breaking up and slingshotting around the sun but somehow the design cannot handle 1g?

 

[Warped9]

No, it was a well thought out and reasonable line of thinking. The limit of period f/x actually served to come up with something that made more sense.

It was an answer to a dilemma in 1966. It is now 2015, and even the within the bounds of the universe as it existed then, it really made no sense. It can handle incredible strains of planets breaking up and slingshotting around the sun but somehow the design cannot handle 1g?

It looked ridiculous. The only saving grace of the pic posted in this thread is that MJ's design is far superior to JJ's piece of stool.

 

[BillJ]

No, it was a well thought out and reasonable line of thinking. The limit of period f/x actually served to come up with something that made more sense.

It was an answer to a dilemma in 1966. It is now 2015, and even the within the bounds of the universe as it existed then, it really made no sense. It can handle incredible strains of planets breaking up and slingshotting around the sun but somehow the design cannot handle 1g?

It looked ridiculous. The only saving grace of the pic posted in this thread is that MJ's design is far superior to JJ's piece of stool.

First, it was well thought out. Then when that has a hole poked in it, you go with it looked ridiculous? And toss on a slam at Abrams...

Mature.

 

[Warped9]

It was an answer to a dilemma in 1966. It is now 2015, and even the within the bounds of the universe as it existed then, it really made no sense. It can handle incredible strains of planets breaking up and slingshotting around the sun but somehow the design cannot handle 1g?

It looked ridiculous. The only saving grace of the pic posted in this thread is that MJ's design is far superior to JJ's piece of stool.

First, it was well thought out. Then when that has a hole poked in it, you go with it looked ridiculous? And toss on a slam at Abrams...

Mature.

No, it was just another thing JJ fucked over. And if some don't want to hearr JJ's crap put down then maybe they should just keep it out of here since iit has no bearing whatsoever on the TOS universe.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

There must have been some kind of "shift of concept" somewhere along the line, because it was my understanding that starships did not and could not land on planets

Land on planets? No. Be BUILT on a planet? Yes.

 

[BillJ]

It looked ridiculous. The only saving grace of the pic posted in this thread is that MJ's design is far superior to JJ's piece of stool.

First, it was well thought out. Then when that has a hole poked in it, you go with it looked ridiculous? And toss on a slam at Abrams...

Mature.

No, it was just another thing JJ fucked over. And if some don't want to hearr JJ's crap put down then maybe they should just keep it out of here since iit has no bearing whatsoever on the TOS universe.

It's all part of the general Star Trek universe. Might as well get used to it. Or quit discussing Star Trek.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Yeah, BillJ has it right.

TOS being unable to afford to land either the Enterprise or a shuttle every week was why the transporter was invented. The first draft series pitch document dated March 11, 1964 allowed for the possibility of rare landings of the entire hero ship, before that idea was scrapped due to budget limitations.

It's a reasonable belief that all of the in-universe legend about the Enterprise being built in space was a direct result of being unable to land the ship in the first place. Take away the budget limitation that precluded landing the entire ship, and thereby any need in-universe to account for why the ship can't land, and the assumption that the ship was built in space is no longer necessary.

By the way, is everybody forgetting "Tomorrow Is Yesterday," when the lovely lady took a dip in Earth's atmosphere? The only reason she handled so badly then was because the ship was on auxiliary power only, due to time warp damage. As per the dialog from the episode itself, under normal operating conditions she would have had more than enough power to maneuver without any sluggishness.

And anyway, as far as my imagination is concerned, the ship can obviously handle one gee just fine, because that's what the ship's gravity is normally set to! Given that, once the ship is up and running, she will have an artificial gravity field as a routine part of normal operation, it's more than logical to build her on the surface of the Earth.

 

[Maurice]

Hey, the OT was the shot, not another JJ bash session. Sheesh.

 

[Ghrakh]

If it's an artificial limitation then why the orbital drydock in TMP? If Enterprise could land on Earth, why have it in space where spacesuits are needed?

C'mon, be fair now. That was all the way back in 1979 and they only had a $46M budget to work with.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

If it's an artificial limitation then why the orbital drydock in TMP? If Enterprise could land on Earth, why have it in space where spacesuits are needed?

Because Roddenberry had spoken that the ship was built in orbit?

 

[Nebusj]

If it's an artificial limitation then why the orbital drydock in TMP? If Enterprise could land on Earth, why have it in space where spacesuits are needed?

If you can work on a rocket inside the Vehicle Assembly Building, why are rockets also worked on after they've been rolled out to the launchpad?

 

[Mytran]

Don't I remember reading somewhere that the Enterprise modular components were built on Earth but then assembled in space? This always made a heckofalotta sense to me, since you get the best of both worlds (especially with those potentially fragile hull joins - a gravity free environment would be definite plus until they're complete)