No, there's obviously a part of the scene missing, it's a trailer after all.
Official Trailer Review & Comments Thread!! [Spoilers, of course]
- Thread starter Tom
- Start date
Ok, I see that there is possibly a big issue concerning the Enterprise being built on Earth. Now as far as I know being a Trek fan since the original I do have issues with the Enterprise being built on earth. Starships were never meant for atmo flying so the question is how the hell are they going to get the Enterprise into space. Enterprise did almost enter atmo in one episode but they managed to break free. I also thought the whole point of building a starship in space was because of the dangers of the warp engines. There's a reason for them being built away from the hull because of the "warp" field it creates. You cannot fire these babies on Earth because the warp bubble it creates is enough to damage anything it touches. Granted the older models have the warp engines closer to the hull but these are less powerful.
This Enterprise is clearly able to take off and fly in atmosphere.
Hello everyone, newbie here. Having just seen the trailer,the director says the film will be different, well I am horrified and fear the movie, when it comes out, will be crap. Crap as in we won't be able to see anything in any detail for long enough with out the camera shaking and jerking around all over the place. I'm sure the story line will be intriguing but that's not much good if it gives me a freaking headache whilst trying to watch it. The same thing happened when the new TV series of Battlestar Galactica came out, I fell off my seat with crossed eyes and a headache! I've never watched it again, I changed channel in utter disgust. How do I contact the director and ask him to hold the camera "SMOOTHLY", like in a proper film.
Perhaps they can't afford a tripod.
I do hope I'm wrong about this. Why do they have to shake the camera during every action sequence? CRAP CRAP CRAP
Perhaps they can't afford a tripod.
I do hope I'm wrong about this. Why do they have to shake the camera during every action sequence? CRAP CRAP CRAPRemember Generations? Ok, the Enterprise did crash but I reckon if they didn't enter the atmosphere at such a steep angle (prompting Data to shit himself) they would have been able to 'pull up' and get back out of the atmosphere. Now if the enterprise-D could do that, then I am sure a smaller ship can.
Also I seem to recall that the saucer section of the Enterprise refit was fitted with landing struts so that it could land on a planet.
Klingon Birds of Prey landed on a planet.
USS Voyager could land on a planet.
If Trek has covered all of this before then why is it such a big deal now?
Also I seem to recall that the saucer section of the Enterprise refit was fitted with landing struts so that it could land on a planet.
Klingon Birds of Prey landed on a planet.
USS Voyager could land on a planet.
If Trek has covered all of this before then why is it such a big deal now?
All that you said is true when using the warp drive in atmosphere, which can destroy the whole planet, but impulse is ok to use in atmosphere. Go back and watch episodes of Voyager because that is a great example of landing a Federation starship.
You're exactly right
. What caused the Enterprise D to crash was the fact that the impulse drives failed coming into the atmosphere too fast and the shockwave from the other half of the ship. But if not for that they could've flown and landed with no problem.
^In "Tomorrow is Yesterday", the Enterprise was seen flying in earth's atmosphere for some time, and was almost attacked by Captain Christopher's jet fighter.
Hello everyone, newbie here. Having just seen the trailer,the director says the film will be different, well I am horrified and fear the movie, when it comes out, will be crap. Crap as in we won't be able to see anything in any detail for long enough with out the camera shaking and jerking around all over the place. I'm sure the story line will be intriguing but that's not much good if it gives me a freaking headache whilst trying to watch it. The same thing happened when the new TV series of Battlestar Galactica came out, I fell off my seat with crossed eyes and a headache! I've never watched it again, I changed channel in utter disgust. How do I contact the director and ask him to hold the camera "SMOOTHLY", like in a proper film.
Perhaps they can't afford a tripod.
I understand your feelings, but I think that you'll enjoy the movie, regardless of camera movements that you may not like
. If you want a steady cam in movies, pick yourself up some early Kevin Smith flicks. The camera doesn't move hardly at all. (I'm just messin with ya' 
.)Don't get me wrong I'm not going to flame the movie until I have seen it but I am just going on the facts presented by the show and various material that followed.
You cannot compare the Enterprise with Voyager for the simple fact that Voyager was made to land. It even came with feet to allow for a atmo landing. In terms of Enterprise this is purely a spaceship which is why you have shuttles and teleport.
I has been noted that the original Enterprises's saucer section could infact detach from the main ship in an emergency, but we only saw this happen in Next Gen.
I'm pretty sure that the orignal Enterprise entered the upper atmo and because of this was able to be seen from the sky. But it's been ages since I've seen the orignal and I'm purely going by memory.
Oh and as for the Next Gen Enterprise crashing the saucer section as far as I can remember innertial dampners had failed so if they did crash they would all be stains on the floor walls consoles....
Don't get me wrong I'm going to watch Star Trek when it comes out I always give new Star Trek shows a chance and I'm interested to see how this version pans out.
You cannot compare the Enterprise with Voyager for the simple fact that Voyager was made to land. It even came with feet to allow for a atmo landing. In terms of Enterprise this is purely a spaceship which is why you have shuttles and teleport.
I has been noted that the original Enterprises's saucer section could infact detach from the main ship in an emergency, but we only saw this happen in Next Gen.
I'm pretty sure that the orignal Enterprise entered the upper atmo and because of this was able to be seen from the sky. But it's been ages since I've seen the orignal and I'm purely going by memory.
Oh and as for the Next Gen Enterprise crashing the saucer section as far as I can remember innertial dampners had failed so if they did crash they would all be stains on the floor walls consoles....
Don't get me wrong I'm going to watch Star Trek when it comes out I always give new Star Trek shows a chance and I'm interested to see how this version pans out.
* The NX Enterprise fly in the atmosphere. Even shot down some nazi-planes. In TOS, when Enterprise back in time, too go in to the atmosphere.
Flying in atmosphere is a no question. You can be upset about the canon, because Roddenberry, after came down from mount Sinai, said that Enterprise was build in space.
Flying in atmosphere is a no question. You can be upset about the canon, because Roddenberry, after came down from mount Sinai, said that Enterprise was build in space.
I'm pretty sure the "feet" on Voyager are more accurately referred to as "landing struts".
Semantics lol :P
Of course, the NX-01 didn't stay in the Earth's atmosphere for long, even if it was an alternate past timeline. She swooped back up into space right after firing the weapons that destroyed Vosk's temporal gateway.
That's EXACTLY the kind of promotion Star Trek needs from now to May.I just saw a report about the movie on the german news, they showed most of the trailer, but it was cut differently. They basically told everyone to go and see it and stressed that it's not lame like the old movies.
Well, at least it was good promotion for the new movie.
Lol, of course the Enterprise wasn't made to fly in the atmosphere, but here's the description from the writer's perspective on the Enterprise being constructed on Earth: "One example of a concept which seemingly contradicts Star Trek canon but came from the precedent set in the novels was having the Enterprise built on Earth, rather than space. Orci said that the idea that some things have to be constructed in space is normally associated with "flimsy" objects which have to be delicately assembled and would not normally be required to enter a gravity well. He said that this did not apply to the Enterprise because of the artificial gravity employed on the ship and its requirement for sustaining warp speed, and therefore the calibration of the ship's machinery would be best done in the exact gravity well which is to be simulated."
That's enough for me lol
That's enough for me lol
Where is that quote from?
An interview. Duh.
Similar threads
- Poll
