It's ''fans'' like this, that make trekkie's LOOK bad!

[StarTrek1701]

I would read them if the page had better formatting.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Nice read, basically sums up why I think the movie would have been a lot better if had just been a plain & simple reboot from the get go (ala Batman Begins, nuBSG for example), then no one would have any such problems at all.

But they seemed to want to slap Leonard Nimoy in there and so wrote the mess of a plot around getting him in there somehow

Considering the differing Stardates, the difference in technology and design and the fact that Spock doesn't seem to remember how to timetravel using the slingshot maneuver, I'm inclined to think this IS a complete reboot of the type you describe. The time-travel scenario is just a bit of charity for canon-nazis who refuse to accept anything resembling a reboot while achieving basically the same result; the movie does not explicitly say Future Spock's timeline is the one we're familiar with, after all, it merely implies it and lets the viewer come to his own conclusion.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

^^ True, and I can't argue that, but what it came down to is that I got nothing from this film because it was all adrenalin and no smarts. And that's not enough for me. It doesn't give me enough for what I like in a good Star Trek adventure.

For me, the only one that really did was TMP--indisputably the smartest Trek movie on record. The thing is, I thoroughly enjoyed the Wrath of Khan for all of the same reasons I enjoyed ST-XI and all of the reasons I enjoyed about thirty minutes of Nemesis. Sometimes, you just want to see some starships Thrown Down.

Anyway, sometimes smarts is overrated. I'd rather watch Jim Kirk bludgeon people with his fists than with a mouthful of treknobabble.

Kirk was never one to indulge in technobabble.

That's what I like about him!

 

[Kirk1980]

Yeah, but it's easier to pretend the film is perfect than to engage in rational debate.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

BTW, on the subject of Vulcan's blue skies:

The live-action for the Vulcan drill sequence was, of course, shot outside - which is great for believable outdoor lighting, of course. Watching the movie tonight I was struck by the number of tight, low-angle shots during the landing and fight sequences that included the sky. And of course the camera is in constant motion through these sequences.

It may simply have been time and cost prohibitive to consider replacing the natural sky in all of these shots with an artifical one. That kind of thing may have driven the decision about how Vulcan should appear.

Or not. Just a thought.

Also, on the matter of the ship's scale...I noticed that the long windows in the upper row that surround the rim of the Enterprise saucer are actually broken up horizontally into four panes each - there are three visible demarcations in each of them. Which not proof that the windows are much larger than we're used to seeing on this ship, it does suggest that.

 

[miraclefan]

''Dennis'' I LOVE your signature! Best day ever indeed!

 

[Trekker4747]

BTW, on the subject of Vulcan's blue skies:

The live-action for the Vulcan drill sequence was, of course, shot outside - which is great for believable outdoor lighting, of course. Watching the movie tonight I was struck by the number of tight, low-angle shots during the landing and fight sequences that included the sky. And of course the camera is in constant motion through these sequences.

It may simply have been time and cost prohibitive to consider replacing the natural sky in all of these shots with an artifical one. That kind of thing may have driven the decision about how Vulcan should appear.

That's a real-world/meta explantion. Which doesn't solve anything.

Because obviouisly it's cheaper and easier to just film a regular blue sky.

The question is, why does Vulcan have a blue sky in this movie but a RED sky every other time we've seen it?

My answer?

The sky on our OWN planet can be a different color depening on the weather, season and time of day.

The shot(s) of Vulcan with a blue sky simply were at times when the sky appeared blue rather than the usual red.

 

[trekkiedane]

The shot(s) of Vulcan with a blue sky simply were at times when the sky appeared blue rather than the usual red.

But... Then we have nothing to nitpick and rant about

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

BTW, on the subject of Vulcan's blue skies:

The live-action for the Vulcan drill sequence was, of course, shot outside - which is great for believable outdoor lighting, of course. Watching the movie tonight I was struck by the number of tight, low-angle shots during the landing and fight sequences that included the sky. And of course the camera is in constant motion through these sequences.

It may simply have been time and cost prohibitive to consider replacing the natural sky in all of these shots with an artifical one. That kind of thing may have driven the decision about how Vulcan should appear.

That's a real-world/meta explantion. Which doesn't solve anything.

Sorry, but I don't give a fuck about "in-continuity" gameplaying; I've had it up to my ass with that foolishness. I'm a little interested, though, in why the filmmakers decided to go with blue instead of red or yellow. They were not against spending money, when they thought it mattered.

 

[MvRojo]

I would read them if the page had better formatting.

Same here.

I'll just agree that whoever posted that takes things too seriously to have spent the time and energy to post that.

 

[Falconfire]

I always had a issue with Vulcan having a red sky personally, especially when they modeled the planet after Mars in TOS and in the later series, and Mars while being red, more often than not has a blue sky.

 

[Qonos]

I always had a issue with Vulcan having a red sky personally, especially when they modeled the planet after Mars in TOS and in the later series, and Mars while being red, more often than not has a blue sky.

technically vulcan should have a blue sky anyway... because there is oxygen in the atmosphere

 

[pookha]

We shouldn't pick on him too much - a lot of the pictures and info on ex astris scientia are pretty cool, and hard to find elsewhere.

Whenever I want to see the design of a new ship or something, that's usually where I head. Maybe we have to suffer this kind of rant as a trade for the good stuff on there.

I know. I usually feel bad commenting on something like that. But, that one was a bit much. He has forgotten to "suspend disbelief."

Like this one...

The movie plot is built on a chain of coincidences, obviously poised to get the seven main characters of TOS and essentially only these characters together on the Enterprise in some fashion, to link their destinies as if it has to happen again in the parallel timeline, under totally different circumstances. The first link in the chain is when Nero arrives in the past. It is almost the exact place and time where Winona Kirk is heavily pregnant with her son, who would be the best friend of Nero's archnemesis (or so he believes), Spock.

No one has informed him that life is built on coincidences. Also, if he knows anything about JJ and his productions he would know that JJ loves the idea that the timeline tries to course correct itself.

overall i really appreciate his site and have visted it a lot over the years.
but if he has issues with coincidences in fiction then he seriously should read some classical literature. there in oedipus,you find them in the work of dickens.

 

[Haggis and tatties]

^ People keep saying this. Is this because you didn't want to read all of something you weren't that interested in? Or simply beause you can't read a few paragraphs of text? The way you're all saying it it sounds like the latter.
It's all bullet pointed, it's not one super huge neverending sentence. If you don't like looking at text I hope none of you try reading these things called "books"

Its was more to do with glancing at the first few complaints and seeing nit picking taken to a whole new level, i have seen the movie, i enjoyed the movie, nowhere while watching the movie was i struck by all those so called inconsistencies that would require a whole page of text to whine about things like engine room coloured pipes or bald Romans with tattoos.

You would think to hear some this movie was worse than Nemesis the way they drone on about time lines and plot holes....Nemesis and Enterprise were the final nails in the coffin of the franchise that was neglected and left to rot.

This movie has singled handedly brought the franchise back to life, and in a big way, its shown the money men that trek can still make them money, that in my view is good for Trek and good for trek fans, its either that or we all sit watching reruns of a dead franchise for the rest of our lives, and frankly i would rather see trek alive and doing well.

If me must lose some rapid Trek fans who cant accept changes that will allow Trek to become more popular than ever then so be it.

 

[erebus]

Actually this criticism doesn't make sense: perhaps he/she does have a life and just happens to have an eidetic memory and profound powers of analysis as well. Too often the unwashed insecure herd try to put down our best talent by objectively unfounded and envious criticisms like this with a consequential detrimental hit to society as a whole.

It seems illogical, even folly, to propose that being part of the proudly mediocratic crowd gives you a greater grasp, insight and enjoyment into our brief sparks of existence that we call life.

It makes me gasp with amazement how far this kind of attutude has put back progress. I could have sat back and let those brainy folks make it so i wouldnt' have to work and be even lazier than i am now, heck i could have had a real Enterprise by now if that put-down attitude had been left in the stone age like the rest of the ape sh* we left there.

Ya-ba-da-ba-Doo!!

 

[Trekker4747]

Sorry, but I don't give a fuck about "in-continuity" gameplaying; I've had it up to my ass with that foolishness. I'm a little interested, though, in why the filmmakers decided to go with blue instead of red or yellow. They were not against spending money, when they thought it mattered.

Fine, then don't play along.

But real-world answers don't answer anything for those of us who ARE looking for in-universe explanations.

And it occurs to be that the first establishing shot of Vulcan was likely CGI anyway so that's one case where it wasn't done because it was cheaper to not color the sky; so in that one case it would've been red if that was their intent. So it would seem to just be a JJ-Change for the Sake of Change.

 

[erebus]

Ah yes, well due to the drilling beam changing the relative sizes of particulate matter suspended in atmosphere about it and also the supersonic pressure wave of its ferocity upon them, the Rayleigh scattering of red wavelengths by said matter in the vicinity of the beam exceeded the scattering of the admittedly barren but evidently sufficent blue wavelengths resulting in a temporarily blue sky. QED

(oh oh, i think i forgot that there were some shots of vulcan blue sky before the drilling.. ah well, back to wikipaedia )

 

[TrekGuide.com]

As someone who has spent many hours of his life working on a Stardate Calculator, I can't really fault the guy for paying attention to the details. The more research I do on Stardates, the more inconsistent they become. At least this movie put an end to that nonsense, while not actually contradicting it.

While I don't invest all my energy in nitpicking (I prefer to explain away plot holes), I do remember stupid inconsistencies, like when the Enterprise-D shot an orange "phaser" beam out of the photon torpedo tube in "Darmok" ... and that was nearly 20 years ago!

But, hey, there's room for both fanboys and nitpickers in Trekkiedom. Can we all just get along?

 

[Kirk1980]

Well....obviously, Erebus.

 

[btflash]

actually i think this gentleman made a lot of great points.