Don't know if this has been covered. Is that Ben Cross or Nimoy in the scene with Spock's mother?
Cross.
Don't know if this has been covered. Is that Ben Cross or Nimoy in the scene with Spock's mother?
I like all Star Trek, heck I started posting here because of Enterprise. But I know what made the original great got left behind years ago in favour of the stuff that brought in new blood/money.See - this is where the problem seems to come in for a lot of people - it's not that it's "not Star trek", it's the Star Trek changed into something else - and now continues to change.
It's all Star Trek and it will continue to change...
Which I fully expect to see anyway... but that's a shame.And I'm sure that these things were done, not because they "fit" or "made sense" but rather because "they look cool." Unfortunately, while that may work for a one-off movie, it DOESN'T work for something that's going to stand up to years, or even decades, of scrutiny.
So what?
They can simply change everything again in the next movie.
That's exactly what we're getting, I'm afraid. That's what happens when people who've been promoted ahead of their peers (due to family connection) and who have no idea how real military command and rank structures work get to make things up on their own.You know, in general, I'm pretty happy with everything we've seen and heard so far, but one thing that really does concerns me is this notion of Cadet Kirk winding up in permanent command of the Enterprise. Not only does it nullify a HUGE portion of Kirk's backstory and formative history, but it's utterly preposterous to think that Starfleet would ever do such a thing. It's bad enough that a disgraced cadet who was essentially smuggled on board could wind up in even temporary command during a crisis, somehow bypassing the entire chain of command, but there is simply no way he would be allowed to keep it no matter how hot s**t he is. I don't think that's just a fanboy complaint either, I think it's the kind of thing that could destroy a lot of this movie's credibility even with regular audience members who give it more than half a second of thought.
I'm holding out hope that Kirk isn't really a cadet by this point in the film, that he is actually a Lieutenant or even a full Commander with a few years of actual service under his belt. He might simply be back at command school and is wearing the black shirt not because he is a cadet but because he's been suspended from active duty for cheating on the Kobayashi Maru test and the threat from Nero crops up in the middle of it.
Or maybe he doesn't wind up in permanent command at the end. Maybe Pike survives and Kirk goes back to fill in the rest of those blanks in his backstory, serve aboard the Farragut, be given the Republic as his first real command, etc. before succeeding Pike as captain of the Enterprise a few years down the road, just in time for Star Trek XII.
Just don't expect us to believe that a CADET would be given permanent command of Starfleet's flagship. Please.
Internal consistency is important...
Which I fully expect to see anyway... but that's a shame.
The folks on this BBS are generally older than on most 'net BBS's, so many of us (and this may include you?) remember the state of Trek fandom in the 1970s and 1980s. Pouring over and expanding upon seventy-odd episodes (and a few animated shows), plus eventually a movie or two. It was the gradual establishment of a "mythos" which created the loyal fanbase which eventually brought about the rebirth of Trek in the late 80s.
Myths need to be internally consistent... Hercules can't be a mortal in one story, a half-mortal in the next, a monster in the next. The stories that got passed around were always supposed to be the same heroic figure, living in the same world.
Internal consistency is important... unless, as some people (but, not me anymore) are still hoping, this movie "resets" to the original timeline at the end. Doesn't mean you need to tip the hat to everything ever done, only to avoid overtly contradicting it.
Lapis has covered even more thoroughly what I might have said on that, but I'd also suggest you read the Ulster Cycle in Irish mythology. Cú Chulainn exhibits exactly such extreme variations and, to a lesser extent, I think the same might be said of Gilgamesh in the Sumerian/Akkadian mythologies....
Myths need to be internally consistent... Hercules can't be a mortal in one story, a half-mortal in the next, a monster in the next. The stories that got passed around were always supposed to be the same heroic figure, living in the same world.
...
I like all Star Trek, heck I started posting here because of Enterprise. But I know what made the original great got left behind years ago in favour of the stuff that brought in new blood/money.See - this is where the problem seems to come in for a lot of people - it's not that it's "not Star trek", it's the Star Trek changed into something else - and now continues to change.
It's all Star Trek and it will continue to change...
So the argument that all it takes is phasers and transporters to make Trek rings hollow for many of us.
The worst bit about that scene is that it's NONSENSE from the standpoint of efficient construction.Seems like a good enough reason to me. I love that shot!
"Because it looks cool" or "because it'll be a neat scene" should never be a reason to make a scene.
That's Michael Bay thinking, there.
Why would you assemble the nacelles in-place, or assemble the saucer on top of the secondary hull? No existing, or projected, construction methodology ever envisioned makes for that sort of a construction process. This is what people who have no freakin' clue how things are actually made think it happens, though.
In a more reasonable approach... you'd build the nacelles separately. You'd build the primary hull separately. You'd build the secondary hull separately. Then you'd integrate them at a later point in the construction process.
Now, if the F-22 were the size of a ship, it would be more like I said, which is like a cross between plane and ship building.For a real-world example... look at the F-22. The engine is manufactured at one site, and is shipped to the integration facility. The forward fuselage is manufactured at another site. The mid-body/wing section is done at yet another site. A series of subsystems are assembled at other sites. And all are sent to the "integration site" where the final airframe assembly is done, and all the subelements are turned into an actual aircraft.
The worst bit about that scene is that it's NONSENSE from the standpoint of efficient construction."Because it looks cool" or "because it'll be a neat scene" should never be a reason to make a scene.
That's Michael Bay thinking, there.
Why would you assemble the nacelles in-place, or assemble the saucer on top of the secondary hull? No existing, or projected, construction methodology ever envisioned makes for that sort of a construction process. This is what people who have no freakin' clue how things are actually made think it happens, though.
In a more reasonable approach... you'd build the nacelles separately. You'd build the primary hull separately. You'd build the secondary hull separately. Then you'd integrate them at a later point in the construction process.
Isn't it possible that this is exactly what the trailer is depicting? Perhaps these components were built separately. I imagine they were built fairly close to eachother, since you can't throw a 400 foot long nacelle onto a tractor-trailor and ship it halfway across the country very easily.
Once they have all the part frames complete, then they attach them. Then they fill in her guts and finally, they weld a hull onto her. I think we are seeing her almost completely finished. It looks like they're lifting the sensor dish into place and are about 85% finished with the hull.
Now, if the F-22 were the size of a ship, it would be more like I said, which is like a cross between plane and ship building.For a real-world example... look at the F-22. The engine is manufactured at one site, and is shipped to the integration facility. The forward fuselage is manufactured at another site. The mid-body/wing section is done at yet another site. A series of subsystems are assembled at other sites. And all are sent to the "integration site" where the final airframe assembly is done, and all the subelements are turned into an actual aircraft.
The worst bit about that scene is that it's NONSENSE from the standpoint of efficient construction.Seems like a good enough reason to me. I love that shot!
"Because it looks cool" or "because it'll be a neat scene" should never be a reason to make a scene.
That's Michael Bay thinking, there.
Why would you assemble the nacelles in-place, or assemble the saucer on top of the secondary hull? No existing, or projected, construction methodology ever envisioned makes for that sort of a construction process. This is what people who have no freakin' clue how things are actually made think it happens, though.
In a more reasonable approach... you'd build the nacelles separately. You'd build the primary hull separately. You'd build the secondary hull separately. Then you'd integrate them at a later point in the construction process.
For a real-world example... look at the F-22. The engine is manufactured at one site, and is shipped to the integration facility. The forward fuselage is manufactured at another site. The mid-body/wing section is done at yet another site. A series of subsystems are assembled at other sites. And all are sent to the "integration site" where the final airframe assembly is done, and all the subelements are turned into an actual aircraft.
Each system is easier to work with and to "tweak" when it's in a stand-alone condition. They are tested individually, and only tested as a complete aircraft once you know that all the subelements work individually.
Okay, in the future there will be all sorts of advancements... sure. But this isn't a description of a technological limitation, it's a description of the most rational way to do things, and no advance in technology will change that.
You make sure that parts work first.
JJ's "all on the ground" approach is just silly. I'm certain he's reading these pages these days, so I know he knows how many of us feel about it. And I'm sure that these things were done, not because they "fit" or "made sense" but rather because "they look cool." Unfortunately, while that may work for a one-off movie, it DOESN'T work for something that's going to stand up to years, or even decades, of scrutiny.
No, that's like asking us to believe in 200 years they will be able to travel faster than light. That's just silly.Can't we just pretend that 200 years from now they have discovered a way to launch the ship into space?
Read the post he got warned for Trolling.. Now back to discussion.'Your wife's a moron' doesn't count as a flame as well? What gives?
I have decided, though: if Nero isn't actually working for Future Guy--that is, if this movie isn't just an enormous, roundabout, backdoor way to give Enterprise a proper sendoff--then I will withhold several roses from the bouquet I am sending J.J. Abrams.
No, that's like asking us to believe in 200 years they will be able to travel faster than light. That's just silly.Can't we just pretend that 200 years from now they have discovered a way to launch the ship into space?![]()
Abrams began with the initial scenes of a young Kirk riding in the Corvette and on the motorbike. "The idea with the trailer was to start with something unexpected and Earth-bound and then thrust you into the world of Trek. The scenes on Earth were important to feel a sense of future but also a real sense of now as well. Star Wars is a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away but Star Trek is our future, so it's important that we not feel disconnected from that. There are a couple of sequences that take place in Iowa and some in San Francisco and it was just important that the movie feel connected to familiar terrain before it became about things that you more might expect."
Enterprise was a turkey that nobody watched - I'll be amazed if it gets more than a nod!
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.