I just dont understand why Starfleet would send a ship fuuuull of explosives to a research mission.
III is my favorite
- Thread starter Shat Happens
- Start date
The same reason they put firecrackers in the consoles.
^Indeed, that explains a lot. This guy must be an Admiral in the 23rd:
http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/Crazy_Harry
http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/Crazy_Harry
Or why Starfleet would ever employ a guy with a swagger stick.
THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK is my favourite STAR TREK movie! I love the "darkness" of the story. I love the cinematography, everything looks really great! Uhm ... but now that Shat brings up the ships exploding, how ENTERPRISE went continues to confound and confuse me. It should've just blown up, entirely. Instead, most of it remains intact, which I found to be very strange. I mean, as a visual, the exploding saucer is alright, but the ship burning through the sky like a meteor is what's memorable to me. Why even use the self-destruct in the storyline, if they weren't going to blow the ship up the right way? Just use some other means to push it into the atmosphere ...
Considering the lengths Trek has gone to to impress upon us the power needed to facilitate warp drive, the Grissom's explosion is rather paltry. I always figured the Enterprise took such a long time to die because the self-destruct sequence--activated that close to a planet--had to somehow neutralize or bleed off much of the ships's anti-matter lest it "flare up like an exploding star" and fry everyone planetside.
It's funny how, for this movie, there are all sorts of fan explanations as to why the Enterprise self destructs in the way it does. But when someone asks how the Enterprise could be underwater in Into Darkness, most people just said "shut up, it's a cool visual."
That never would have washed for fans of classic Trek movies, even though the actual answer's the same: it's a cool, dramatic visual.
The self destruct sequence always stood out as weird. They set the distruct and run to the transporter. Kruge actually sits around and waits for Kirk's signal to beam his men in ("we're nooooot quiiiiite ready to be conquered, Commander. Just one more sec..."), then the transporter "stutters" as it beams Kirk and crew out and the Klingons aboard. I really felt like there was a chunk of dialog missing here, something that explained why all this was necessary. The transporters on the BoP worked, since Kruge beamed down and everyone down on Genesis was able to beam up. Sure, we can speculate the BoP transporters were out and they fixed them so Kruge could beam out, and that the Enterprise transporters were low on power (hence the stutter), but nobody said that on screen.
That never would have washed for fans of classic Trek movies, even though the actual answer's the same: it's a cool, dramatic visual.
The self destruct sequence always stood out as weird. They set the distruct and run to the transporter. Kruge actually sits around and waits for Kirk's signal to beam his men in ("we're nooooot quiiiiite ready to be conquered, Commander. Just one more sec..."), then the transporter "stutters" as it beams Kirk and crew out and the Klingons aboard. I really felt like there was a chunk of dialog missing here, something that explained why all this was necessary. The transporters on the BoP worked, since Kruge beamed down and everyone down on Genesis was able to beam up. Sure, we can speculate the BoP transporters were out and they fixed them so Kruge could beam out, and that the Enterprise transporters were low on power (hence the stutter), but nobody said that on screen.
I'm sure fans complained in letterzines at the time. TMP explicitly said that the Enterprise self-destructed by an uncontrolled mixing of matter and antimatter, and that the result would have been enough to destroy the immense V'ger. Then, two movies later, we get the bridge exploding, then saucer crumpling and exploding with the engineering hull left intact.
Mr Scott's Guide to the Enterprise came up with the explanation that the Enterprise had two self destruct systems, one for use in deep space (seen in TMP) and a less explosive one for use near inhabited bodies (STIII's). Of course, since V'ger was in Earth orbit at the time, that's hardly the best explanation...
Because the underwater thing was never a question that should have been asked in the first place.
Always been a big fan of the "different types of self destruct" theory myself. It does make sense for a number of reasons. A mode designed specifically to cripple the ships flight, library computer, and any other "sensitive" systems makes a lot of sense.
The only real nag I ever had was just the question of "what happened to the antimatter?" I'm assuming it would be dumped out of the ship, but that was of course beyond the scope of what the story was about. It's just something I've always wondered about.
Asking questions should never be out of the cards.
The only real nag I ever had was just the question of "what happened to the antimatter?" I'm assuming it would be dumped out of the ship, but that was of course beyond the scope of what the story was about. It's just something I've always wondered about.
Asking questions should never be out of the cards.
Because Captain Esteban was born on a colony were people have been contaminated by a virus who made them highly explosive. Klingons are not so explosive.
Despite what people say, there are stupid questions. "How can a magical spaceship work underwater?" is one of them.
Yes, the RL reason that the Enterprise blew up in stages and then streaked across the sky of Genesis like a sad comet was the same as the RL reason why the Enterprise was sitting on the floor of Nibiru's ocean: it looked good. And yes, Star Trek strains credulity on a regular basis. Sometimes, it strains ceedulity more than others and those times are, ultimately, in the mind of the beholder.
Then you might as well throw out all rules in a fictional universe because it's not real. "What does it matter, it's all bullshit?" Seriously? How is that good storytelling? Fine, a starship isn't real, but in its fictional universe, it was established with certain limits and rules (even if those rules were created in "another timeline" they are remembered by the audience). When the rules of a fictional universe are broken, there should be a reason other than "it's all fake who cares."
Try this on: Kirk can't break out of a cell. He has no key, no phaser, no female guard to seduce. So he uses "his powers." The door magically explodes into pretty little fragments. He walks out. It makes no in-universe sense, but it's okay, because he's not a real person and it was a cool visual. An exaggeration, but the same principle. The explanation may not matter to you, but it's not a stupid question.
I suspsect that back in the day when it required a pen, paper, envelope and stamp to discuss stuff like that, those who knew it was all just to look pretty feel the need to bother like those who were upset. Nowadays it can be done from a phone or iPad on a couch.
Wasn't it established that in the ficitional Trek setting, village-sized starships can happily hide underwater as far back as 1998's Star Trek: Insurrection?
False analogy.
James T. Kirk is a human being. The Starship Enterprise uses magic to make it go.
But nice try.
Similar threads
