Having the Enterprise built on Earth was unbelievable enough but this

[Locutus of Bored]

Re: Having the Enterprise built on Earth was unbelievable enough but t

That's cute, although some of the comparisons aren't entirely fair. For example, Voyager under ice and Pegasus in an asteroid were both the result of those ships being destroyed. And we had technobabble to explain modifications made to the Delta Flyer, and even then it leaked.

And yet structurally both Pegasus and Voyager held up pretty well despite being buried.

So, it's suddenly a bad thing now that instead of giving us ridiculous technobabble that almost no one likes they just decided to show the Enterprise underwater and let fans come up with their own nonsense explanations if they wanted to? My, how things have changed from the Voyager days.

I don't even see why it needs explaining since ships have not only gone underwater before but have endured far worse extremes of pressure and other environmental factors. I don't get why seawater is such a dealbreaker but black holes are fine. Oh, wow, they've conquered 17th century technology 300 years in our future! It's the same misplaced argument as the armchair pseudoscientists who got all bent out of shape about the ship being built on the ground.

 

[SeerSGB]

Re: Having the Enterprise built on Earth was unbelievable enough but t

That's cute, although some of the comparisons aren't entirely fair. For example, Voyager under ice and Pegasus in an asteroid were both the result of those ships being destroyed. And we had technobabble to explain modifications made to the Delta Flyer, and even then it leaked.

And yet structurally both Pegasus and Voyager held up pretty well despite being buried.

So, it's suddenly a bad thing now that instead of giving us ridiculous technobabble that almost no one likes they just decided to show the Enterprise underwater and let fans come up with their own nonsense explanations if they wanted to? My, how things have changed from the Voyager days.

I don't even see why it needs explaining since ships have not only gone underwater before but have endured far worse extremes of pressure and other environmental factors. I don't get why seawater is such a dealbreaker but black holes are fine. Oh, wow, they've conquered 17th century technology 300 years in our future! It's the same misplaced argument as the armchair pseudoscientists who got all bent out of shape about the ship being built on the ground.

Slingshots around stars would put more stress on a ship than a little water. And people forget the SIF--the same system that keeps the ship from flying apart--would likely make things like we saw in STID a minor nuisance at best.

 

[The Wormhole]

Re: Having the Enterprise built on Earth was unbelievable enough but t

That's cute, although some of the comparisons aren't entirely fair. For example, Voyager under ice and Pegasus in an asteroid were both the result of those ships being destroyed. And we had technobabble to explain modifications made to the Delta Flyer, and even then it leaked.

And yet structurally both Pegasus and Voyager held up pretty well despite being buried.

But neither were capable of flight again. And in both instances everyone who had been aboard the ships were killed.

So, it's suddenly a bad thing now that instead of giving us ridiculous technobabble that almost no one likes they just decided to show the Enterprise underwater and let fans come up with their own nonsense explanations if they wanted to? My, how things have changed from the Voyager days.

Yes, damn it. How can I be expected to enjoy Star Trek when the characters aren't spewing numbers and technical jargon to explain everything they're doing? To expect that is just obscene. And wrong.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Re: Having the Enterprise built on Earth was unbelievable enough but t

That's cute, although some of the comparisons aren't entirely fair. For example, Voyager under ice and Pegasus in an asteroid were both the result of those ships being destroyed. And we had technobabble to explain modifications made to the Delta Flyer, and even then it leaked.

And yet structurally both Pegasus and Voyager held up pretty well despite being buried.

But neither were capable of flight again. And in both instances everyone who had been aboard the ships were killed.

So? Voyager bellyflopped on the ice after dropping out of space before getting buried under tons of ice. Pegasus had suffered catastrophic failures before it drifted into the asteroid and became buried due to the phase effect. Those are hardly comparable situations to a controlled landing and submergence into water.

 

[The Doctor]

Re: Having the Enterprise built on Earth was unbelievable enough but t

Yes, damn it. How can I be expected to enjoy Star Trek when the characters aren't spewing numbers and technical jargon to explain everything they're doing? To expect that is just obscene. And wrong.

I'm not sure, but I think you'll have to learn to manage.

I was always partial to Nicholas Meyer's directors commentary over TWoK. During his discussion of the movie and his choices, he frequently went back to the theme of leaving questions for the audience to ponder. Explaining why the Enterprise was underwater adds nothing to the action sequence and takes away from the frenetic pacing that makes it so effective.

It's OK to leave things unexplained. Sometimes its even preferable to laying all the cards out on the table.

 

[Ryan8bit]

Re: Having the Enterprise built on Earth was unbelievable enough but t

I think the question is, where can they put the Enterprise in the next movie that will piss the most nitpickers off even more?

 

[The Wormhole]

Re: Having the Enterprise built on Earth was unbelievable enough but t

Inside a star. "It is a starship."

 

[Opus]

Re: Having the Enterprise built on Earth was unbelievable enough but t

I think the question is, where can they put the Enterprise in the next movie that will piss the most nitpickers off even more?

Uranus

 

[BillJ]

Re: Having the Enterprise built on Earth was unbelievable enough but t

I think the question is, where can they put the Enterprise in the next movie that will piss the most nitpickers off even more?

Wendy's drive-thru.

 

[SalvorHardin]

Re: Having the Enterprise built on Earth was unbelievable enough but t

I think the question is, where can they put the Enterprise in the next movie that will piss the most nitpickers off even more?

Under the sand and into the pit of Sarlacc.

 

[Ryan8bit]

Re: Having the Enterprise built on Earth was unbelievable enough but t

I think the question is, where can they put the Enterprise in the next movie that will piss the most nitpickers off even more?

Wendy's drive-thru.

Well, there's already been enough complaints about it being Biggie-Sized

 

[BillJ]

Re: Having the Enterprise built on Earth was unbelievable enough but t

I think the question is, where can they put the Enterprise in the next movie that will piss the most nitpickers off even more?

Wendy's drive-thru.

Well, there's already been enough complaints about it being Biggie-Sized

 

[SalvorHardin]

Re: Having the Enterprise built on Earth was unbelievable enough but t

I was just watching the 5th episode of Wonders of the Solar System with Brian Cox and he was about to do some deep sea exploring.

So he's talking about the deep-ocean research submersible DSV Alvin and his description was "The Atlantis is the launch vessel for Alvin, one of the world's most rugged submarines. Built like a spacecraft...."
It reminded me of this thread...and many others like it.

 

[BillJ]

Re: Having the Enterprise built on Earth was unbelievable enough but t

I was just watching the 5th episode of Wonders of the Solar System with Brian Cox and he was about to do some deep sea exploring.

So he's talking about the deep-ocean research submersible DSV Alvin and his description was "The Atlantis is the launch vessel for Alvin, one of the world's most rugged submarines. Built like a spacecraft...."
It reminded me of this thread...and many others like it.

I may be wrong, but I thought we tested some of our equipment under water because it most closely resembles the conditions the stuff will face in space? Things like EVA suits.

 

[SalvorHardin]

Re: Having the Enterprise built on Earth was unbelievable enough but t

I was just watching the 5th episode of Wonders of the Solar System with Brian Cox and he was about to do some deep sea exploring.

So he's talking about the deep-ocean research submersible DSV Alvin and his description was "The Atlantis is the launch vessel for Alvin, one of the world's most rugged submarines. Built like a spacecraft...."
It reminded me of this thread...and many others like it.

I may be wrong, but I thought we tested some of our equipment under water because it most closely resembles the conditions the stuff will face in space? Things like EVA suits.

I'm not that familiar with the details but I've seen plenty of photos of astronauts in their suits training under water, supervised by divers.

 

[BillJ]

Re: Having the Enterprise built on Earth was unbelievable enough but t

I'll say now what I said after I saw the movie.

I don't care about the technical side of a starship underwater, we've seen starships face many stressful situations before and come out squeaky clean. I wish there would have been a logical story reason to hide the Enterprise.

But... when it lifts off, it's one of the absolute coolest scenes in any science-fiction movie I've ever seen.

 

[SalvorHardin]

Re: Having the Enterprise built on Earth was unbelievable enough but t

I wish there would have been a logical story reason to hide the Enterprise.

I don't think it would have made a difference. Except now we would have a few extra threads nitpicking that reason.

Trek fans have been making shit up for decades, trying to excuse far, far worse situations. Well boys and girls, now is your time to shine again.

 

[Ssosmcin]

Re: Having the Enterprise built on Earth was unbelievable enough but t

I think the reason why people don't like the Enterprise sitting on land is because of how it's built. The huge heavy saucer is held up by that little slanted neck and the nacelles supported by those thin fingers, and that's fine in the weightlessness of space. But the ship should, I guess, start bending and collapsing under the strain if sitting on the surface. The holoship in Insurrection, on the other hand, was a box. It was built specifically for the purpose of being hidden and flown through the atmosphere. Big difference between the two.

My only issue with the underwater bit was that story logic was sacrificed for a kewl effect, something that would have been really blasted by fans if done 20 years ago. The Enterprise could have still been seen by the natives if it was in orbit at the beginning, but then had to fly down to the volcano to get Spock. There was no logical story reason for it to be sitting underwater. Nobody heard it land? Saw it land? Anything? Stealth mode? Spock didn't bitch about hiding in the water near a colony? The intentional ditching of story logic simply to have a cool image bugs me. It does in any film.

However, since we were warned way ahead of time, I got over it long before I saw the movie and enjoyed the hell out of it. I'm no NuTrek hater, I really loved this movie. Just joining the discussion is all.

 

[SalvorHardin]

Re: Having the Enterprise built on Earth was unbelievable enough but t

I think the reason why people don't like the Enterprise sitting on land is because of how it's built. The huge heavy saucer is held up by that little slanted neck and the nacelles supported by those thin fingers, and that's fine in the weightlessness of space. But the ship should, I guess, start bending and collapsing under the strain if sitting on the surface.

Nope. For all you know there's all sorts of tractor beam/structural integrity/antigravity devices at work on the construction site, supporting the whole ship just fine.

 

[Belz...]

Re: Having the Enterprise built on Earth was unbelievable enough but t

I think the question is, where can they put the Enterprise in the next movie that will piss the most nitpickers off even more?

I actually hope they do. They've pulled this off twice already. I say go for broke.