You people are hilarious. Carry on.![]()
In English, please.
Is that or your other post somehow related to the technical aspect of trek, or are you also replying in some fashion to the post that Cary and I were just addressing?
Bullshit, we WERE on target, then diverting to address the post. You're the one who is out in left field on this.In English, please.
I find you and Cary thumping each other on the backs and harrumphing about your negative-nellyism and subsequent treatment--and in the wrong type of thread no less!--endlessly amusing. And, in the event I were to get some kind of response about being part of the clique in question, I say this as someone who is becoming ever more disenchanted with the new movie.
Is that or your other post somehow related to the technical aspect of trek, or are you also replying in some fashion to the post that Cary and I were just addressing?
Isn't like you guys were paying any more attention to the topic at hand.![]()
Not only that, it totally broke from the rest of the ship's look, of spit-and-polish clean and shiny... every time we went from the bridge to the engine room, I was totally pulled out of the illusion of being on the Enterprise... it ruined the illusion, it ruined the continuity of the ship, and it just looked incredibly dumb.
again the point. Never been on a ship huh? The workspaces look NOTHING like the engineering spaces. Especially on research vessels and the like.
Not only that, it totally broke from the rest of the ship's look, of spit-and-polish clean and shiny... every time we went from the bridge to the engine room, I was totally pulled out of the illusion of being on the Enterprise... it ruined the illusion, it ruined the continuity of the ship, and it just looked incredibly dumb.
again the point. Never been on a ship huh? The workspaces look NOTHING like the engineering spaces. Especially on research vessels and the like.
Not just a ship. In most buildings the electrical rooms, janitors closets, elevator machine rooms... heck, even the stairwells are far more spartan than the publicly viewable parts of the building.
again the point. Never been on a ship huh? The workspaces look NOTHING like the engineering spaces. Especially on research vessels and the like.
Not just a ship. In most buildings the electrical rooms, janitors closets, elevator machine rooms... heck, even the stairwells are far more spartan than the publicly viewable parts of the building.
![]()
I was responding to someone telling me to take it out of here and into the "Trek XI forum." Which (1) was inappropriate, since we ARE talking "Trek Tech", and (2) isn't gonna happen for the simple fact that I don't want to subject myself to the bullshit that is par for the course in that forum.In English, please.
I find you and Cary thumping each other on the backs and harrumphing about your negative-nellyism and subsequent treatment--and in the wrong type of thread no less!--endlessly amusing. And, in the event I were to get some kind of response about being part of the clique in question, I say this as someone who is becoming ever more disenchanted with the new movie.
Is that or your other post somehow related to the technical aspect of trek, or are you also replying in some fashion to the post that Cary and I were just addressing?
Isn't like you guys were paying any more attention to the topic at hand.![]()
Sure, it's just a web forum. But it says a lot about a man when, if given just a TINY bit of power, he's that ready to abuse it. Thank God the guy will never have any real power in life...
If you seriously think that, you haven't been watching very long, have you?The way I see it, though, is that we're stuck with this movie. As inexplicable as some of the tech might be, it's now part of Trek canon. We have to find a way to integrate it. Luckily, I don't think it was so far out of whack that it can't be explained in somehow.
I only hope the next movie won't introduce more tech inconsistencies.
The GOOD thing about how this movie was handled is that it is not, in fact, "canon." Not at all. Basically, as far as "canon" is concerned, Nero and Spock disappear in the late 24th or early 25th century, and that's that. None of what you're seeing in this new movie ever happened "in canon."
What you've got here is a totally unrelated universe, which can (and undoubtedly will) deviate in any way which JJ and his guys have a whim to make it deviate. If they decide that "warp drive" allows literally instantaneous travel from one orbit to another, regardless of distance... they can do that and nobody can stop 'em. If they decide that "phasers" actually are squirt-guns firing "phaser-juice" at people... they can do that. If they decide that Kirk and Olson were having a hot-and-heavy-gay-relationship before his death.. they can do that. They can do whatever they want. And, based upon choices like "destroy Vulcan" and "make Spock and Uhura get it on" and so forth... not to mention production-design issues all around... I have no confidence whatsoever that they won't.
SO... your choice is simple. Enjoy these movies for what they are... movies that are NOT CANON, and are effectively unrelated to the Trek we've all known except for recycling of a few style items and a few character names (and only one who's really doing a good recreation of the original character - Urban is great, isn't he?).
Realize that we don't have to make any of this fit with anything... because it's not going to. Abrams has screwed up any chance of that. He COULD have tried to make this feel like it was "Star Trek done better" but he changed waaaay too much for no other reason than "well, I CAN."
But this is freeing at the same time that it's disappointing. This is a new show... three movies, max... in what is, effectively, another "mirror universe" but one further removed from the "real" Trek universe than that one was. So nothing... NOTHING.. that happens in the "AbramsTrek" continuity has any impact whatsoever on the Star Trek continuity. Nothing in AbramsTrek that disagrees, stylistically or technologically, with Star Trek style, technology, history, etc, has any impact whatsoever on the Star Trek continuity. Except, of course, for Nimoy-Spock being in that other universe.
I don't accept the bullshit "many universes is real science" line. Simply because it was mentioned in a TNG episode and because a few people with a science background have fantasies about this... there is ZERO mathematical, zero experimental, and zero observational evidence that this is the case, or could be the casee. I believe that there's one universe... a "dimension" is simply a unit of measure for determining your position within that universe. Not just the three coordinate dimensions we typically think of, but also time (and certainly many more which we don't perceive. Effectively, the entire, start to finish, universe exists... and we're just "sliding down a slope of time." Going to another time is fundamentally no different from going to another X, Y, or Z coordinate. You can interrupt things "downstream" from where you are, of course... but if you did that, well... "you always did it."
SO... from my perspective... with what we saw in this movie... the classic Trek universe has been destroyed and replaced by this "NuTrek" universe. Fortunately, it's fictional, so we can pretend otherwise. Especially since guys who I sincerely doubt passed High School Physics much less have any advanced science background are telling us "that's real science there."
I choose to simply ignore this movie as far as "Real Star Trek Continuity" is concerned. It "never happened." Maybe it's all a hallucination Spock's having as he falls into the black hole...
I have said this before - the technology and look and feel of the univerise is an attractive part of Star Trek. But Star Trek was NEVER about how the ships looked liked or if there was a 'Warp Core' or 'Plasma Conduits' or 'Tachyon Pulses" or how the bridge looks. It's amazing to me how Star Trek became the minuate when all along they wanted things to seem like they COULD work so they could get on with the story (at it's best).
It's about people on an adventure. There's a certain way that looks --an iconic look even-- and works out - in space, on a big ship, doing exploring, doing shooting, risking certain death, and sometimes learning what it means to be human from the unknown.
You people are hilarious. Carry on.![]()
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1359/1126729637_cced4b4571_o.jpg^^ Bulkheads are not something you just can install at a later date since they are a basic part of the load bearing structure of a ship, as for what an engineroom should look like I suggest you to visit HMS Belfast in London which is a WW-II era "light" cruiser it will tell you ALL about compartimentalization of engine rooms, Oh and probably will cause you to get lost at least 5 times..![]()
You people are hilarious. Carry on.![]()
Agreed.
But then again, guys (to those Gep Malakai was talking about), if you have a beef with a moderator, talk it over with them. I was reading this thread with massive interest, until you two decided to highjack it and detail your frustration to anyone (not) willing to listen. It does not create more sympathy for you -- it does rather the opposite; grown ups don't whine like that. What's done is done; either you take it up with the source, or don't talk about it.
So how do you guys reconcile those hideously wasteful and ugly and shiny corridors with the spartan stairwell analogy, huh?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.