New Trek writers are MORONS!

[All Seeing Eye]

I've always liked the idea that ships are built on the Earth first and then fly into orbit into those orbital shipyards things just for the final phase so it can then depart.

 

[shakov]

New Trek Writers are the saviours of Trek. Who cares where the Enterprise was built. It is this sort of whining that drove trek into the ground.

 

[Lord Lunacy]

Here, fixed the title of the thread for you:
"People who bitch about New Trek writers being MORONS! are...are MORONS!!"

Can't fathom the reason for this thread...just more tit for tat BS gripes about insignificant details about a fictional world. Frak Cannon...um, in the barrel!

 

[CorporalClegg]

What amazes me is we've actually had a few "Why are Star Wars fans 'cooler' than Star Trek fans?" topics across the TBBS over that last couple of months.

 

[Cyke101]

I don't see what the big hubbub is about having the ship built on Earth. It's not like any major canon plot points emerged from the theory that she was built in space. If the Enterprise being constructed in space lead to the the foundations of Starfleet or the birth of Picard, then maybe.

As much as we cry and whine about perceived lack of quality writing, what we really mean is "we want tidbits and proven fan-theories that really have no bearing on plot advancement whatsoever."

 

[Arlo]

There is nothing about the design of the BoP that indicates to me the wings are necessary for its function in an atmosphere. Any more than the wings of an X-Wing fighter. They're there because they look cool, period.

 

[Bobatiel]

http://www.luice.net/~kemkem/startrek/tos21.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3094/2366013521_65dfbe796d.jpg?v=0
http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/m...Voyager_landing.jpg/292px-Voyager_landing.jpg
http://www.starshipdatalink.net/operations/images/landing-2.jpg

[Hotlinked images converted to links]

 

[Cyke101]

There is nothing about the design of the BoP that indicates to me the wings are necessary for its function in an atmosphere. Any more than the wings of an X-Wing fighter. They're there because they look cool, period.

And the wings are for great-looking but horribly placed weapons, too. To this day I say a non-Klingon designed the BoP.

 

[KennyB]

The same could be said about the OP

 

[Prons]

IRL space shuttles are built on the ground.

 

[pookha]

the freaking shuttles have no wings and they dont have a problem .

for that matter the ships may be carried into space with some type of special tugs so that engine testing can be performed in space.

 

[Dukhat]

Has anyone noticed something here? The OP starts a thread about some insignificant crap and insults the producers of the new movie, yet after his opening post he's never heard from again? Why are people even bothering to reply to this thread that's almost certainly destined to be locked because the OP is blatantly trolling?

 

[Silent_Bob]

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

Well quite frankly, watching a cannon being violated would probably be fairly disturbing, and whoever did so would likely have rather severe mental problems. So yes, i probably would have nightmares after seeing a cannon being violated.

Canon on the other hand, not so much.

 

[Admiral Lithium]

I'm sorry, as a Trek lifer who has enjoyed the TV shows and movies so much that I have allowed myself to murder disbelief (because with Trek suspension has never been enough ) I find it extremely entertaining to watch other Trek fans whine about plot issues in this new film as though they were unique!

 

[Locutus of Bored]

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.

Regardless of the logic or lack thereof behind having the Enterprise built on the ground, the ship survived and escaped the gravity well of a massive black hole, so anything a terrestrial planet could throw at it is not going to be an issue. Additionally, with its powerful sublight propulsion systems and various energy fields, wings aren't really necessary for the ship to fly in an atmosphere. There's no reason why it couldn't be built on, takeoff from, and fly in an atmosphere without any trouble.

 

[Chaos Descending]

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.

this

 

[Jeyl]

I'm still confused on why the writers wrote Kirk to be this horny womanizer. Everyone says that was the way Kirk was in the series, but I never got that impression at all. I mean, anyone who doesn't take advantage of a sexual based species known as the Deltans clearly knows some shred of dignity that is completely absent in the new movie.

 

[Sheep]

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.

You said it much more diplomatically than I would have.

I can understand people ripping on the movie's internal consistency and motivation issues, but the arguments about technology? The Shat said it for us: "Get a life".

 

[GalaxyX]

Man the things some people get stuck on.

I too assumed the following:

1. The structural integrity of Star Trek ships can withstand going into high warp without tearing aparts into jaggedy pieces. They can even TURN and do evasive maneuvers while at high warp velocities. I'm sure sitting in an earth bound shipyard is NOT going to cause the structure any meaningful stress.

2. I always assumed that once completed, the Enterprise would probably be tugged out to space, either by a special tugging ship, or by a bunch of space shuttles. Even if the ship can take off under its own power, I wouldn't be against that.

 

[M'Sharak]

Ok, maybe that's a bit of hyperbole. <snip>

Yes, it is.

Got some of the responses you might expect, though.


Agreement:

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.

Mild trolling:

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

Don't call other posters haters, please.


Disbelief:

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?<snip>

Hotlinked images offered as rebuttal to a contention by the OP:

http://www.luice.net/~kemkem/startrek/tos21.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3094/2366013521_65dfbe796d.jpg?v=0
http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/m...Voyager_landing.jpg/292px-Voyager_landing.jpg
http://www.starshipdatalink.net/operations/images/landing-2.jpg

[Hotlinked images converted to links]

Don't do that, by the way. Images posted inline should be hosted on web space belonging to you.


All in all, a nice assortment, really, but not without a touch of healthy skepticism and perspective:

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.

Since the OP has got that rant out of his system for the moment and everyone else has had a chance to kick the MORON ball around, why don't I just close this?