• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

New Interview with Bob Orci about Trek XI from the Grand Slam

from trekmovie.com concerning Orci's Q&A said:
Enterprise having components being built on earth doesn’t preclude it being assembled in space, in fact it ‘probably will be’
Click to expand...
I find it interesting that he addressed the "Enterprise Construction Issue". It seems possible that this film will show the pieces of the ship being assembled in space, hopefully putting an end to the controversy.

By the way, I personally don't care if they show it being built in space -- I will try to enjoy the film no matter where the Enterprise was built. However it may help placate some of the hard-core fans who seemed to have keyed on that issue as proof that Abrams and Co. "don't get it".
 
I don't think the tidbit about Nimoy probably means anything in the literal sense.

It's good that Spielberg is so encouraging and helpful.
 
Star Trek will make the Trek universe ‘feel real in a way it never has before’

Just add dirt.

Using the ’supreme court’ constitutional analogy, your view on if the film ‘fits’ within canon will depend on if you are a ’strict constructionist’ or believe in the ’spirit of the law’

In other words, it's a reboot, folks.

Nimoy was the ‘key’ to the script: he was the only way to ‘resolve continuity issues’ of the story and to have an ‘appropriate transfer of the soul’

"We needed a way to dupe existing, truly anal-retentive fans into seeing this flick at least once."

There is at least one Star Trek reference in Transformers 2

Bill Shatner plays the voice of Unicron.
 
MisterPL said:
Star Trek will make the Trek universe ‘feel real in a way it never has before’

Just add dirt.

Using the ’supreme court’ constitutional analogy, your view on if the film ‘fits’ within canon will depend on if you are a ’strict constructionist’ or believe in the ’spirit of the law’

In other words, it's a reboot, folks.

Nimoy was the ‘key’ to the script: he was the only way to ‘resolve continuity issues’ of the story and to have an ‘appropriate transfer of the soul’

"We needed a way to dupe existing, truly anal-retentive fans into seeing this flick at least once."

There is at least one Star Trek reference in Transformers 2

Bill Shatner plays the voice of Unicron.
Click to expand...

You just have to piss on everyone else's parade, don't you? :rolleyes:
 
MisterPL said:
Star Trek will make the Trek universe ‘feel real in a way it never has before’

Just add dirt.

Using the ’supreme court’ constitutional analogy, your view on if the film ‘fits’ within canon will depend on if you are a ’strict constructionist’ or believe in the ’spirit of the law’

In other words, it's a reboot, folks.

Nimoy was the ‘key’ to the script: he was the only way to ‘resolve continuity issues’ of the story and to have an ‘appropriate transfer of the soul’

"We needed a way to dupe existing, truly anal-retentive fans into seeing this flick at least once."

There is at least one Star Trek reference in Transformers 2

Bill Shatner plays the voice of Unicron.
Click to expand...

Tell me who's anal here? :confused:
 
Mutenroshi said:
Tell me who's anal here? :confused:
Click to expand...

That would be those who would boycott the movie if the wrong font is used on the hull of the Enterprise, or if Scotty has ten fingers instead of nine, or if The Shatner doesn't have some kind of role in the movie, or if there's a trace of dirt on the floor of a shuttlecraft parked on a planet covered in dirt.

I'm not making this stuff up, just making observations. And I'm sure the studio's concerned about "fan" prejudice tainting the perceptions of the general audience long before we've even seen anything beyond a teaser trailer. That's probably why there's so much secrecy surrounding this project; far too many "strict constructionists" ready to dismiss this movie at the slightest sign of what they consider to be a breach of canon (whatever that means in Star Trek).
 
MisterPL said:
Mutenroshi said:
Tell me who's anal here? :confused:
Click to expand...

That would be those who would boycott the movie if the wrong font is used on the hull of the Enterprise, or if Scotty has ten fingers instead of nine, or if The Shatner doesn't have some kind of role in the movie, or if there's a trace of dirt on the floor of a shuttlecraft parked on a planet covered in dirt.

I'm not making this stuff up, just making observations. And I'm sure the studio's concerned about "fan" prejudice tainting the perceptions of the general audience long before we've even seen anything beyond a teaser trailer. That's probably why there's so much secrecy surrounding this project; far too many "strict constructionists" ready to dismiss this movie at the slightest sign of what they consider to be a breach of canon (whatever that means in Star Trek).
Click to expand...

So..... did we miss some kind of sarcasm in your post?
 
Jackson_Roykirk said:
from trekmovie.com concerning Orci's Q&A said:
Enterprise having components being built on earth doesn’t preclude it being assembled in space, in fact it ‘probably will be’
Click to expand...
I find it interesting that he addressed the "Enterprise Construction Issue". It seems possible that this film will show the pieces of the ship being assembled in space, hopefully putting an end to the controversy.

By the way, I personally don't care if they show it being built in space -- I will try to enjoy the film no matter where the Enterprise was built. However it may help placate some of the hard-core fans who seemed to have keyed on that issue as proof that Abrams and Co. "don't get it".
Click to expand...

Personally, I'm laughing at the absurdity that this matter is considered controversial at all. :lol: I really having a hard time understanding why the location and means of the Enterprise's construction matters in the slightest bit.
 
Tralah said:
Jackson_Roykirk said:
from trekmovie.com concerning Orci's Q&A said:
Enterprise having components being built on earth doesn’t preclude it being assembled in space, in fact it ‘probably will be’
Click to expand...
I find it interesting that he addressed the "Enterprise Construction Issue". It seems possible that this film will show the pieces of the ship being assembled in space, hopefully putting an end to the controversy.

By the way, I personally don't care if they show it being built in space -- I will try to enjoy the film no matter where the Enterprise was built. However it may help placate some of the hard-core fans who seemed to have keyed on that issue as proof that Abrams and Co. "don't get it".
Click to expand...

Personally, I'm laughing at the absurdity that this matter is considered controversial at all. :lol: I really having a hard time understanding why the location and means of the Enterprise's construction matters in the slightest bit.
Click to expand...

For the same reason people got worked up about T'pol being in Starfleet when Spock was allegedly "the first". When some people's preconceptions are challenged (fanon, in this case), they react with hostility, even if the evidence shows that they are wrong (there is no canon that the E was built in orbit, or that Spock was the first Vulcan in Starfleet).
Personally, I like it when a movie (or TV show, book, etc) does that. what's the point of watching a movie if the plot unfolds exactly as you thought it would?
 
Tralah said:
Personally, I'm laughing at the absurdity that this matter is considered controversial at all. :lol: I really having a hard time understanding why the location and means of the Enterprise's construction matters in the slightest bit.
Click to expand...
Well, let's see....

1) For people who have no preconceptions... having elements of the ship built on the ground then ferried into orbit for construction makes no difference either way, so it's not going to have any major impact on them except, possibly, to give them a "wow, cool" moment in the movie.

2) For people who are long-time hardcore Trek fans, they know that it's stated clearly and unambiguously in the original production notes (referenced, among other places, in the Whitfield book "The Making of Star Trek") that the ship was built in pieces on the ground at the San Francisco Naval Yards (a real place in the real world) and assembled in orbit.

3) For people who are hardcore TNG fans, they'll be aware that there were Galaxy-class elements built on the surface of Mars, shown in one episode.


SO... the people who are objecting to this particular bit of "revisionism" (so-called) are actually the ones DOING the "revising," it would seem. Nobody who doesn't know canon will care. Nobody who adheres strictly to canon will object. Only people who want their own PERSONAL revisions to "Trek" to overrule what's already there will object.

Right now we're having issues over whether or not JJ and Co's "personal revisions" (which we know remarkably little about) will be objectionable, or even NOTICEABLE. But this particular bit is not "revision" at all... it's ADHERENCE TO CANON.

Sheesh....
 
EyalM said:
For the same reason people got worked up about T'pol being in Starfleet when Spock was allegedly "the first". When some people's preconceptions are challenged (fanon, in this case), they react with hostility, even if the evidence shows that they are wrong (there is no canon that the E was built in orbit, or that Spock was the first Vulcan in Starfleet).
Personally, I like it when a movie (or TV show, book, etc) does that. what's the point of watching a movie if the plot unfolds exactly as you thought it would?
Click to expand...
I recall (though it's POSSIBLE I'm mistaken) that this was actually stated on-screen in an original episode. I'd have to go back and watch 79 hours of DVDs to find out for sure, though, and I just don't have the time right now!

That IS, however, why T'Pol wasn't ever "in Starfleet." She was "attached" but (at least in the "normal timeline") never took a Starfleet commission. She was a Vulcan "navy" officer on detached duty with Earth Starfleet. Spock was the first Vulcan Officer to serve in the FEDERATION Starfleet.

Plenty of "outs" there...

1) Maybe there were Vulcan ENLISTED?
2) Maybe there were Vulcans who served in Earth Starfleet, just not in the Federation Starfleet, prior to Spock?
3) Maybe there were plenty of Vulcans who served alongside Starfleet but retained their Vulcan Naval commissions?

Oh, there are SOME folks who react hostily, that's true... but I see more hostility towards the (so-called) "canonistas" than I see being vented BY them.

I'm at a loss to explain why so many "fans" choose to attack other fans because they have different (and, evidently, perceived-as-lesser) perspectives.
 
Cary L. Brown said:
I'm at a loss to explain why so many "fans" choose to attack other fans because they have different (and, evidently, perceived-as-lesser) perspectives.
Click to expand...
Well said. The only reason I can find is in the word fan... short for fanatic... derivative of lunatic... means crazy. Only two groups I know of react this way... Yankee/RedSox fans and Star Trek fans... both hold grudges.
Perhaps that is why I like NASCAR... we pick on each others' favorite driver then go have a drink together. The grudge fans would never seem to have a drink with the other.
 
Cary L. Brown said:
the people who are objecting to this particular bit of "revisionism" (so-called) are actually the ones DOING the "revising," it would seem. Nobody who doesn't know canon will care. Nobody who adheres strictly to canon will object. Only people who want their own PERSONAL revisions to "Trek" to overrule what's already there will object.

Right now we're having issues over whether or not JJ and Co's "personal revisions" (which we know remarkably little about) will be objectionable, or even NOTICEABLE. But this particular bit is not "revision" at all... it's ADHERENCE TO CANON.

Sheesh....
Click to expand...

Absolutely right.

It's like the notion that the Enterprise cannot enter Earth's atmosphere. (an argument that supposedly 'backs up' the anti-ground shipyard ranting) I don't know where that notion came from since it clearly could do so in TOS. Hell, it seemed to do ok, even after severe damage from hitting a black hole. There it was, only a few miles above the surface, without sheilds, running on emergency power, and it seemed to be doing just fine. (Until the air-force showed up)

It's TOS Canon: The ship can fly around in an atmosphere with no difficulty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top