Iceland filming location for construction site of Enterprise?

[trekkerguy]

There is no U(nited)S(tates)of A(sshol....) in the 23rd century thank you very little.

Are you absolutely certain of that? William Shatner's ST:TFF had a caption stating "Yosemite National Park" during the camping sequence.

TGT

That in no way means there's a USA. Just a place called "Yosemite National Park".

 

[Lashmore]

yes the names would exist still, but there would not be a governing country called united states of america anymore. I always only ehard reference to "America" as in the landmass in the shows, and state names. States would have needed to be kept (every coutnry ahs soemthign similair) so when soemone said say, MELBOURNE people didn;t confused over which melbourne, consdiering there's 2 in the world as far as I know.

 

[trevanian]

Re: Construction site of Enterprise, Star Trek XI

^ Neither side managed to convince the other the last ten times we discussed this subject. J.J. Abrams is obviously giving you people what you want, and to be perfectly honest I envy you your victory.

TGT

I figured you to be picketing outside "Luddites 'R' Us" ...

 

[trevanian]

Re: Construction site of Enterprise, Star Trek XI

. Who wants to see the same thing twice?

I guess nobody in short-attention-span-theater, which explains why they changed the ship design too.

I guess if I wanted to see the same thing twice, I'd do something really unusual and buy a model kit of it ... ohshoot, no, there are lots of people who buy models kits of something and look at it again and again.


It's context, man! You can do spaceframes in a million different ways, most of them damned interesting visually, and avoiding the rebar-look of ground builds.

Everybody talks about antigravity as if it is a given, and we've seen little to suggest that. The antigravs in TOS were a little handheld rig in OBSESSION. We don't know how the shuttlecraft 'boosters' work, or if they use a/g at all in TOS time. There are obviously things that keep the crew from liquifying under acceleration -- OUT IN SPACE ANYWAY -- but forces on ground are different, and ... shit, TGT is right, you guys won, so that means TOP GUN is the smartest movie ever made and TITANIC the most moving. Up is down, wrong is right ... and trek looks to now be fantasy (as in shit), not SF.

 

[Tom Servo]

Re: Construction site of Enterprise, Star Trek XI

I guess nobody in short-attention-span-theater, which explains why they changed the ship design too.

I guess if I wanted to see the same thing twice, I'd do something really unusual and buy a model kit of it ... ohshoot, no, there are lots of people who buy models kits of something and look at it again and again.


It's context, man! You can do spaceframes in a million different ways, most of them damned interesting visually, and avoiding the rebar-look of ground builds.

Everybody talks about antigravity as if it is a given, and we've seen little to suggest that. The antigravs in TOS were a little handheld rig in OBSESSION. We don't know how the shuttlecraft 'boosters' work, or if they use a/g at all in TOS time. There are obviously things that keep the crew from liquifying under acceleration -- OUT IN SPACE ANYWAY -- but forces on ground are different, and ... shit, TGT is right, you guys won, so that means TOP GUN is the smartest movie ever made and TITANIC the most moving. Up is down, wrong is right ... and trek looks to now be fantasy (as in shit), not SF.

People are taking this whole thing way too seriously. Because the ship was built on the ground...it's fantasy. Yep thats the deal breaker, because nothing in Star Trek before has ever EVER come so far from scientific fact as the ship being built planet side. Damn, I guess I have been watching a different franchise all these years.

The ship has artificial gravity, which means Starfleet obviously has technology, reliable technology, that can change gravitational forces, and evidently some variant of this technology is employed here.

I love how for years, ever since TOS was created, people have sat and tried to justify, and figure out what we see in the shows in a technological sense, how it works, why it works etc, and why things may act differently then they would in the real world. Yet no one really knows how it works, because it was all made up. Yes, most of the time the concepts are grounded in a real world theory, but thats all.

So now this movie comes along, and we see something new, and no longer do people do what they did before, and try to figure out why, and how something was done in universe. Now people just sit and whine because it does not match something in the fanon explanation. TOUGH. The shows creators from DAY 1 have done things how they want, when they want, and if something is scientifically plausible, AND good in the story, they use it, and if it just makes a good story, but is not really realistic, they also use it. THATS WHY ITS SCIENCE FICTION. For years, the other producers and directors have all gotten slack for it, and yet now when Abrams, and new people do something, people just call it shit. Oh well, don't see the movie then, because I figure the audience that will make or break this film is not the audience going "Damn, I wish that the ship was built in spacedock."

And thanks for mentioning Top Gun and Titanic, because those two films were something that Trek has not been in a while...successful.

 

[Lashmore]

Fantasy is shit? I've found most fantasy based literature to be far beyond the intellectual level required for most sci-fi literatures.

Please, what I hate most is, people talking in absolutes like their personal taste is gods own taste.

Excuse me, but god doesn't eat shit that tastes like this.

Its your opinion, ok, no drama. No big deal. it correct to you, good for you. But does it mean its superior? Not at all, no ones is.

It's a fictional medium, its all bullshit. Most of it doesn't make sense.

lets begin thinking logically, which admittedly vulcans rarely do even though they preach it a lot, they just say logic to try and convince people they are right....much alike people in this forum now that I come to think about it....probably me too.

Look at the design of the original Enterprise in 60's, come on the thing would collapse upon itself just hitting impulse like any of the trek designs would cause they are so badly shaped. (Abrams included)

"Oh structural fields" a smart man would design a ship that wouldn't require a structural field to stay together whislt its going forward at 2km's an hour. We must've grown retarded when we began to explore space and design intergalactic starships. it's a massively unrealistic waste of the oh so important power required to run a starship

Therefore trek is the most unrealistic sci-fi medium out there...hell even Tripping the Rift makes more sense

And thanks for mentioning Top Gun and Titanic, because those two films were something that Trek has not been in a while...successful.

probably the most intelligent and actual fact based comment in this thread thus far.

 

[M'Sharak]

Since the OP's original question about possible construction of the Enterprise on Mars has been answered, and since my earlier instruction here (about adhering to the rest of his question concerning whether the shot of Kirk approaching the construction site on a motorcycle was filmed on the basaltic sandur plains of Iceland, even though it's supposed to represent Iowa):

So, I know there has been discussion/debate about why the Enterprise is being constructed on Earth (as suggested by the trailer), when it was supposed to be built at Utopia Planitia on Mars (or, was that only the Enterprise D, I can't remember now), but, has it been actually confirmed that what we are seeing in the trailer is Earth? I noticed that the scene with Kirk driving up to the Enterprise is actually shot on the basaltic sandur plains of Iceland. I've done quite a bit of field research there and recognize the terrain, it is very unique. If you're familiar with planetary science the Icelandic terrain is considered a fairly close analog to the basaltic terrain of Mars. Could we be seeing a modestly terraformed Mars surface in the trailer? Interesting that they shot that scene in Iceland, either way.

(emphasis mine)

has been largely ignored in favor of dusting off one more time that old beaten-to-death-several-times-over argument about whether the ship has to be built in space, I think we're done here, at least for tonight.

If the OP wishes this thread to be re-opened, he may feel free to let me know, but for now, it's closed.