That's the least of their worries - if the hovering ship sways as much as little as 1% of its width then that's a crewman thrown 4' left or right onto the ground, flat on his face!
What they really need is a Space-Anchor!
Great alternate movie shots
- Thread starter JJohnson
- Start date
That's the least of their worries - if the hovering ship sways as much as little as 1% of its width then that's a crewman thrown 4' left or right onto the ground, flat on his face!
What they really need is a Space-Anchor!
Sounds like a scene from Crisis on Centaurus by Brad Ferguson.
The cover of Blish's Star Trek 5 has the Enterprise hovering over the ground of some (low gravity?) planet that people need spacesuits to be on.
The ship has the technology to hover above the surface, but the crew still has to walk down a long flight of stairs to get to the ground?
Maybe it's an escalator?
Blish (and the cover artist) is obviously a monster.
That scan's not actually from Gold Key, it's from the TOS UK comic strips. Like early Gold Key, they'd never actually seen the show (hence a red-uniformed "Captain Kurt" for the first couple of issues)
The flyover Nibiru at the start of STID did bring to mind a lot of Gold Key comics, which often started with the Enterprise making a low flyover of a planet.
I cried myself to sleep after getting that book for Christmas. My parents didn't know any better. They thought I'd like it because it was Star Trek. *sniffle*
Which would be relevant to this thread how ?
It took less then a page before people were already talking about how horrible they think the new movies are. Which, really, also had nothing to do with this topic perse, which was about some nice art. So yeah, there you go.
Thanks for posting that and I agree, it is certainly odd!
Is that weird landing leg supposed to be a zigzag staircase perhaps?
Considering the wispy, smoke-like appearance of the swirl and the explorer standing immediately beneath it, I'd say it's a stylistic rendition of the transporter having just beamed someone down.
That's how I've always seen it. Question: is this a landing party or are these poor devils being marooned?
Last edited:
It is one thing to repair a ship in space, it is another to build it (think of all the floating parts). Maybe every ship only touched Earth while being built and it was deemed more efficient to repair and maintain them in space (saves on time for landing and relaunching).
Ahhh, so it's the philosophy that the 700+ episodes and the first 10 movies can be discussed and critiqued, but the last 2 movies can't be treated exactly the same way.
Got it.
If that guy is standing immediately below the ship, he must be huge.Considering the wispy, smoke-like appearance of the swirl and the explorer standing immediately beneath it, I'd say it's a stylistic rendition of the transporter having just beamed someone down.
^If the new films were being treated the exact same way, there wouldn't be a problem. But like so many people do with films and TV shows they don't like, they talk about how bad they are, when the reality is they don't like them because they aren't how they would have done them. I keep seeing this here, and on many other forums; "I would have done it differently, therefore it sucks and no one should ever watch it." It's astonishing, really.
There is a difference between critique, and bashing, and the response to the reboot is actually a lot of bashing.
There is a difference between critique, and bashing, and the response to the reboot is actually a lot of bashing.
Good to know that art of taking things out of context is not lost here.
People can have an opinion. Finding a way to shove your down the throats of others is something else. Same thing goes for the fans of JJ's Star Trek, who feel the need to attack those who didn't like it. It goes both ways.
I'll leave it at that.
