New Trek writers are MORONS!

[Vader47000]

Ok, maybe that's a bit of hyperbole. But I just finished listening to the Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzman commentary track on the new Blu-ray Disc of Star Trek IV, and their lack of common sense when it comes to Trek tidbits is astounding.

For example, they cite the fact that the Bird of Prey can land as their justification for having the Enterprise built on the ground in the new movie, for which they say they received a lot of criticism. "See, ships in that time period are strong enough to fly through the atmosphere.

That is ridiculous. Did it occur to them that the Bird of Prey was actually designed for atmospheric flight. Like, that's why it has wings? Just check out Roger Ebert's review of Star Trek III for a discussion of this from 25 years ago.

Orci and Kurtzman's logic here is akin to claiming a lunar module from the Apollo days would be capable of atmospheric flight because the command module would survive reentry.

They also spout off a bunch of their time travel theories about alternate realities, etc.

To be fair, Ronald D. Moore does a Star Trek III commentary and gets a lot of little tidbits wrong. But he understands the basics a lot more than these guys.

 

[Borgminister]

MORANS I tell you!!

 

[Mr. B]

You mean they talk at length about the new movie in The Voyage Home commentary?

 

[Gojira]

You mean they talk at length about the new movie in The Voyage Home commentary?

A little but not too much.

 

[Jeri]

Orci didn't sound like a moron in the recent Q&A online; but he seemed very patient with the morons who were asking the questions sometimes.

 

[Mr. B]

Orci didn't sound like a moron in the recent Q&A online; but he seemed very patient with the morons who were asking the questions sometimes.

I couldn't agree. The "explanations" they came up with for some of the plot holes were complete horseshit.

 

[Tentacle]

New Trek writers are MORONS!

no surprise there, their work speak for itself.

 

[Gepard]

I remain unpersuaded that someone's grasp of fake bullshit technology and how it allows other fake bullshit abilities in any way demonstrates their lack of intelligence.

 

[Devon]

Orci didn't sound like a moron in the recent Q&A online; but he seemed very patient with the morons who were asking the questions sometimes.

I couldn't agree. The "explanations" they came up with for some of the plot holes were complete horseshit.

Nah, they were fine.

Moving on now.

 

[Jeri]

Orci didn't sound like a moron in the recent Q&A online; but he seemed very patient with the morons who were asking the questions sometimes.

I couldn't agree. The "explanations" they came up with for some of the plot holes were complete horseshit.

I didn't think so; I thought it sounded as though they had done a lot of research on the most recent thinking on the nature of time travel and black holes.

Both changed since TOS and modern Treks. The alternate realities are a departure from time paradoxes of the past. They never made any sense if all realities express themselves.

Orci didn't actually get a chance to talk about much more than one or two things, since posters monopolized all the time getting hung up on those.

 

[Jolantru]

Do you haters, cry yourself to sleep at night, with nightmares of the cannon being violated?

 

[CorporalClegg]

I wonder about that too. The world is in one of the biggest economic crises of the last century and people are bitching about the science in Star Trek.

 

[urbandk]

Jesus Christ. Is this thread for real?

You go on for three paragraphs about a Bird of Prey/where the Enterprise was built. This is an excuse to insult people?

Is this movie just a collection of little technical decisions and tidbits that people can argue over? Because it's all make believe science. Star Trek was, is, and always will be make-believe science. Shit gets made up to fit the parameters of the story.

I would say I don't care where the Enterprise was built, but that's not true.

Actually, I am 100% pro Enterprise being built on Earth. For one, it conserves resources. If this ship can allegedly bend space, create artificial gravity, and withstand torrents of fancy weapons, it sure as hell can make it one hundred miles off the ground.

Moreover, the scene is dramatically effective. Young Kirk sees ship and is inspired.

Anyone who cares about some nonsense fake science detail (which he is wrong about) is someone whose opinions I don't care about.

 

[Amaris]

I remain unpersuaded that someone's grasp of fake bullshit technology and how it allows other fake bullshit abilities in any way demonstrates their lack of intelligence.

Agreed!


J.

 

[FemurBone]

For example, they cite the fact that the Bird of Prey can land as their justification for having the Enterprise built on the ground in the new movie, for which they say they received a lot of criticism. "See, ships in that time period are strong enough to fly through the atmosphere.

That is ridiculous. Did it occur to them that the Bird of Prey was actually designed for atmospheric flight. Like, that's why it has wings? Just check out Roger Ebert's review of Star Trek III for a discussion of this from 25 years ago.

and the Bird of Pray is not that big. It only has a crew of twelve so its supposed to be only a fraction the size of the Enterprise.

Of course no one told the special effects people that. The Bird of prey is often shown as being the same size as the Enterprise.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

Erm, I recall an old TOS episode where the the 1701 is in Earth's atmosphere.
I would imagine the BoP is designed for atmospheric flight so they can attack planets better (actually fly down and hit hard to reach targets) and thus manoeuvre better in an atmosphere. That doesn't mean other starships can't A) Enter a planets atmosphere and B) take off from a planets surface (just watch Voyager for that one).

 

[Amaris]

Erm, I recall an old TOS episode where the the 1701 is in Earth's atmosphere.
I would imagine the BoP is designed for atmospheric flight so they can attack planets better (actually fly down and hit hard to reach targets) and thus manoeuvre better in an atmosphere. That doesn't mean other starships can't A) Enter a planets atmosphere and B) take off from a planets surface (just watch Voyager for that one).

Yep. That would be the episode "Tomorrow is Yesterday", and the Enterprise, even temporarily debilitated and with low power, manages to maintain a high altitude level. I find it fascinating that people can accept instant matter teleportation on the quantum level, but can't accept a ship taking off from the ground.

J.

 

[RoJoHen]

Erm, I recall an old TOS episode where the the 1701 is in Earth's atmosphere.
I would imagine the BoP is designed for atmospheric flight so they can attack planets better (actually fly down and hit hard to reach targets) and thus manoeuvre better in an atmosphere. That doesn't mean other starships can't A) Enter a planets atmosphere and B) take off from a planets surface (just watch Voyager for that one).

Yep. That would be the episode "Tomorrow is Yesterday", and the Enterprise, even temporarily debilitated and with low power, manages to maintain a high altitude level. I find it fascinating that people can accept instant matter teleportation on the quantum level, but can't accept a ship taking off from the ground.

J.

There is no precedent for ships taking off from the ground! It's never happened before!

It's a spaceship, dammit, not a take-off-from-Earth ship!

 

[Amaris]

Erm, I recall an old TOS episode where the the 1701 is in Earth's atmosphere.
I would imagine the BoP is designed for atmospheric flight so they can attack planets better (actually fly down and hit hard to reach targets) and thus manoeuvre better in an atmosphere. That doesn't mean other starships can't A) Enter a planets atmosphere and B) take off from a planets surface (just watch Voyager for that one).

Yep. That would be the episode "Tomorrow is Yesterday", and the Enterprise, even temporarily debilitated and with low power, manages to maintain a high altitude level. I find it fascinating that people can accept instant matter teleportation on the quantum level, but can't accept a ship taking off from the ground.

J.

There is no precedent for ships taking off from the ground! It's never happened before!

It's a spaceship, dammit, not a take-off-from-Earth ship!

Exactly. It reminds me of what people would say about the Clipper ships. They were too top heavy, they were too tall, and yet they managed to drastically reduce the time it took to get spices and goods from China back to the Americas.

J.

 

[Zeppster]

Maybe you guys think technology is just so advanced but how long do you think it would take to build something like the Enterprise without any gravity in a vacuum in space? My guess is that in this time it would take well over a century to build something that big in space. Just to build to to a point where you can make the artificial gravity and air work from the inside. I prefer to think that the ship was built to a point where it's shell and all the artificial gravity and air stuff was built on Earth, rest of it was finished in space. Building it in space would take entirely too many men and a chance to lose too many men and it would take too long. Much longer than 25 years.