I disagree. It can be one reason to make a scene. After all, film is (also) a visual medium.
Official Trailer Review & Comments Thread!! [Spoilers, of course]
- Thread starter Tom
- Start date
Like Trekker 4747, I'm also puzzled by the need to show the Enterprise (or similar starship) on the ground. What purpose does it serve? I assume, and might be wrong, that the whole point is for Kirk to see a starship while he's lost and aimless to fill him with a sense of purpose and possibly to get away from an abusive uncle. That's not bad, and it's easy for audiences to get a handle on it, but it wouldn't be hard to do this in orbit.
Consider:
Consider:
Young Jim Kirk is heading home from a failed Federation colony, along with a ship load of other passengers. Some are gaunt and carry haunted expressions from the horrors they've endured. Perhaps we see flashbacks to the colony from Jim's perspective as a tyrant condemns people to death so that the remaining colonists survive. He's seen people he loves die.
Jim makes his way to a dark, quiet place to be alone with his thoughts; an observation lounge with only one or two other people present, watching blurry and streaked stars drift past the lounge windows. He settles in there, leaning against the glass and continuing to play out the memories that torture him. In the background, a steward is making her way, speaking softly to passengers and urging them to their seats.
She reaches Kirk and tells him they're moments away from Earth orbit. Something about this boy catches her attention (what IS it with this guy?) and she takes a moment to chat with him. She gasps as he tells her about Tarsus IV and the actions of Kodos. A quiet moment passes during which the liner drops out of warp and the Earth fills most of the window. Shipyards and NEO traffic dot the spacescape; one will pass quite close.
The steward asks where he'll go now. He says something about a ranch in Iowa, but it hasn't been home since he was eight. He's not certain he ever wants to settle on another planet again anyway. In the reflection of the window, we see his eyes catch on something ... she sees it too. "It's a new Starship. The Enterprise, I think. Starfleet's ships are getting bigger and ... more beautiful, too, don't you think?" Kirk stares at the ship without answering, his eyes sweeping over the curves of her hull ... the depths of her open framework. "Where do you think it'll go?" he asks her. "Anywhere, I guess. Everywhere."
For the first time, we see Kirk smile.
Now, assuming my assumption about the reason for putting the Enterprise on the ground in the first place is right, doesn't this serve the same purpose? And doesn't this tell a more wrenching story than a drunken father-figure with anger management issues? And we've kept to the original conceit that the Enterprise was built -- or at least assembled -- in space.Jim makes his way to a dark, quiet place to be alone with his thoughts; an observation lounge with only one or two other people present, watching blurry and streaked stars drift past the lounge windows. He settles in there, leaning against the glass and continuing to play out the memories that torture him. In the background, a steward is making her way, speaking softly to passengers and urging them to their seats.
She reaches Kirk and tells him they're moments away from Earth orbit. Something about this boy catches her attention (what IS it with this guy?) and she takes a moment to chat with him. She gasps as he tells her about Tarsus IV and the actions of Kodos. A quiet moment passes during which the liner drops out of warp and the Earth fills most of the window. Shipyards and NEO traffic dot the spacescape; one will pass quite close.
The steward asks where he'll go now. He says something about a ranch in Iowa, but it hasn't been home since he was eight. He's not certain he ever wants to settle on another planet again anyway. In the reflection of the window, we see his eyes catch on something ... she sees it too. "It's a new Starship. The Enterprise, I think. Starfleet's ships are getting bigger and ... more beautiful, too, don't you think?" Kirk stares at the ship without answering, his eyes sweeping over the curves of her hull ... the depths of her open framework. "Where do you think it'll go?" he asks her. "Anywhere, I guess. Everywhere."
For the first time, we see Kirk smile.
Ooo noob influx!
Man, are we still having this 'Enterprise in Atmosphere' argument? Guys, it's right there on screen. Again.
Ah I see so we should just forget everything Gene Roddenbury created and just go with the flow. Ah now I totally understand why WB keeps changing comic book movies to suit it's audience whom they think are thick oops I'm sorry noobish to realise that it's been changed. Just cos I'm a new member by no means in the least does that make me a noob.
Besides having a discussion on the subject is healthy.
No need to get all antsy. If something Gene once said never actually became canon and is contradicted again and again, well, then it was never important enough to worry about to begin with. It obviously was never integral to Trek.
Actually, that shot seems to fit perfectly with everything we know about the movie - about the Kirk story.
We've SEEN the enterprise in Space Dock shots - we had them at pornographic level in the first film and then repeats in most of the other films.
The film maker is trying to signal to the mainstream audience who lost interest years ago that this is something new, something that's not just another rehash of a concept dying on it's arse.
It's not only the characters who need updating that signals that to the audience, it's the visual language being updated.
If you come at this from the angle of "well it makes more pseudo-scientific sense for.." you are coming at this from the wrong angle.
The film maker is trying to signal to the mainstream audience who lost interest years ago that this is something new, something that's not just another rehash of a concept dying on it's arse.
It's not only the characters who need updating that signals that to the audience, it's the visual language being updated.
If you come at this from the angle of "well it makes more pseudo-scientific sense for.." you are coming at this from the wrong angle.
Nope, those are real good reasons for a shot or a scene in a movie.
"Because it really happened" is a terrible reason.
Christian, we've been having a think about you using your Batrope to leap off that skyscraper - the force of gravity would lead you to hurt your arms. Instead, we'd like you to run down the internal stairs.
Yes precisely! They are in truth often the motivators that get real energy into a scene - you can't constrain the writing process with a bunch of can'ts or don'ts.
Sharr
Scenes and moments in movies should make sense in the context of the movie's universe and the plot. Not be done simply "because it looks cool."
Um... isn't that the life of a trekkie? I mean, how many times have I seen various arguments on here over, and over, and over again?
Every scene in a book or film should serve the story in some way. Since we've already seen Kirk's first view of the refitted 1701 in TMP, which is probably the emotional high point of that film, I think it's smart for Abrams to do something totally different, and unexpected. I don't see what the big deal is about having the ship built on Earth and flown into space for launch. I would guess by the 23rd century, such things would be feasible, if not commonplace. Hardcore trekkies have always 'filled in the gaps' anyway, when it comes to this techno mumbo jumbo stuff, so I'm not too concerned about it. My only real concern as a fan of canon, is that this film is somehow a bridge to TOS, or that it doesn't attempt to undermine or erase TOS off the map. Judging by what Abrams and everyone involved has said, I'm hopeful that this isn't the case. The trailer looks fantastic, Trek fans should be very excited. I haven't been this excited for a Star Trek movie since TMP.
I haven't seen this mentioned but maybe I overlooked it, there's an odd reflection(?) when Kirk sees the Enterprise on the ground. It's on the reddish support left of the Starfleet sign and kind of moves up and to the right. Any idea what that is?
Gosh, would be impolitic for me to point out that never once does Christian Bale's Batman ever leap off a skyscraper using a Batrope - one assumes precisely because of such concerns of it interrupting the naturalistic style of Nolan's Batman movies?
Not that I'm getting involved in the should or should not the Enterprise be built on the ground, because the only thing I could possibly care less about would be what the bridge looks like.
Psion - that was a nice little scenario there (though the "and more beautiful" is a little on the nose
). However, I'm gathering that this story makes a choice very early on to postulate time interference in Kirk's life from the moment he's born, which actually makes referencing any incident from Kirk's past mentioned in TOS problematic, since I imagine the bulk of the story is supposed to take place in an alternate timeline. It's a dumb choice, IMHO, but there it is.Which reminds me - does anyone know if there's any sign of Sam in this movie? Just curious.
Could be an odd lens flare, or a VFX error. Im sure most of the shots are not finished yet, and will be improved upon and errors tweaked.
Umm, they are?
Expensive in a society without money?
Dangerous in a society that has conquered space travel, inertia and gravity?
Yep:
How does Scotty earn his pay and buy a boat? How does Kirk sell his house from Generations? With what does Uhura buy the Tribble from Cyrano Jones? TOS never bothered with that "there's no money" nonsense.
Extremely. Floating around in a space suit in a spacedock trying to build a massive starship from raw materials would be incredible difficult and insanely dangerous. You'd also need the entire construction staff to be masters of zero-G construction. You'd have a larger and cheaper labor pool doing most of it on the ground. Even Roddenberry imagined that the Enterprise was built mostly on the ground.
Similar threads
- Poll
