Starship Size Argument™ thread

[BillJ]

The ship was just there under water, for a cool visual effects shot, and that was it.

I can live with that because I was drooling during the whole sequence.

 

[JarodRussell]

Kirk is reckless. He does stuff--more of less--cause it's cool or fun, he needs to grow up. Why put a ship in the ocean? Cause why not, it'll be fun.

So nuKirk is like the nuScriptwriters then.

The whole 10 minutes of "Kirk gets demoted for recklessness and then again promoted to Captain" thing could have been cut out of the film without making a difference. It's as pointless as the ship being under water in the opening sequence.

 

[BillJ]

The whole 10 minutes of "Kirk gets demoted for recklessness and then again promoted to Captain" thing could have been cut out of the film without making a difference. It's as pointless as the ship being under water in the opening sequence.

You're right it could have been cut. But I really love the dialogue of the scene and the way Greenwood, Pine and Quinto played it.

There are times I simply go to the movies to enjoy the ride. It had been a really long time since I had went to a Star Trek movie and enjoyed the ride before Abrams/Orci/Kurtzman came along.

 

[SeerSGB]

The whole 10 minutes of "Kirk gets demoted for recklessness and then again promoted to Captain" thing could have been cut out of the film without making a difference. It's as pointless as the ship being under water in the opening sequence.

You're right it could have been cut. But I really love the dialogue of the scene and the way Greenwood, Pine and Quinto played it.

There are times I simply go to the movies to enjoy the ride. It had been a really long time since I had went to a Star Trek movie and enjoyed the ride before Abrams/Orci/Kurtzman came along.

Could it have been? I liked the scene cause it was a very father and son moment. I think losing that scene would have lessened the impact of Pike killed later, as well as the "grown up decision" of Kirk to take Khan into custody over gunning him down as ordered.

 

[Franklin]

Kirk is reckless. He does stuff--more of less--cause it's cool or fun, he needs to grow up. Why put a ship in the ocean? Cause why not, it'll be fun.

So nuKirk is like the nuScriptwriters then.

The whole 10 minutes of "Kirk gets demoted for recklessness and then again promoted to Captain" thing could have been cut out of the film without making a difference. It's as pointless as the ship being under water in the opening sequence.

I posted once that the opening sequence was probably meant to be indicative of the kinds of dangerous stunts and stupid things they were doing over the last year. (The things that made Kirk a pain in the ass to Pike.)

If anyone in the audience face-palmed during that opening scene, that may have been part of the writers' intent. The Kirk at the beginning of the movie is immortal and acts that way. He believes whatever he chooses to do, and however he chooses to do it, things will always be fine in the end. In fact, he probably thinks he's not only immortal, he's a genius. The movie was about him learning that neither of those traits are true.

Now, if 53 year-old Jim Kirk ever took the Enterprise underwater, it better be for a damned good reason.

 

[BillJ]

Could it have been? I liked the scene cause it was a very father and son moment. I think losing that scene would have lessened the impact of Pike killed later, as well as the "grown up decision" of Kirk to take Khan into custody over gunning him down as ordered.

I love the scenes in question but I think the whole "Kirk gets demoted" subplot wasn't handled very well. He's a "Captain", then a "Cadet", then a "Commander/First Officer" then a "Captain" again in a span of about ten minutes. It was awkwardly structured and I think they could've done it better and given us the same father/son and death scenes.

 

[SeerSGB]

Could it have been? I liked the scene cause it was a very father and son moment. I think losing that scene would have lessened the impact of Pike killed later, as well as the "grown up decision" of Kirk to take Khan into custody over gunning him down as ordered.

I love the scenes in question but I think the whole "Kirk gets demoted" subplot wasn't handled very well. He's a "Captain", then a "Cadet", then a "Commander/First Officer" then a "Captain" again in a span of about ten minutes. It was awkwardly structured and I think they could've done it better and given us the same father/son and death scenes.

That is true, there's a better way it could have been handled. Slowed it down. But with the pacing as it is, the scene is needed.

Maybe have sent Pike after Khan, Kirk as XO, Pike dies restarting the core, Kirk gets the Enterprise back for the 5 year mission at the very end.

 

[Praetor]

That is simply going to come down to how seriously someone takes materials that never made it to the screen. Plus, there's been a lot of Star Trek since "The Making of..." and we've seen starships that can operate in the atmosphere and even land. But then again, wasn't the invention of the transporter tied solely to the fact that they couldn't afford the effects budget that would be required to land the ship every week?

True and true... and I think I tend to take background materials somewhat more seriously than most until screen directly contradicts it. Admittedly, this is my problem, not the Abramsverse's.

When I think seriously about building ships on the ground and landing them within the context of Star Trek, I really don't see a problem (though it isn't my favorite thing as I too grew up with the Enterprise being a ship that solely traveled the cosmos). But in a society that can manipulate matter and gravity, it doesn't represent a technological stumbling block for me.

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with this. The land/water thing seemed different for no apparent reason, and that in and of itself bothered me... but if you can build a 700 meter starship, then why can't you build it on the ground.

 

[JarodRussell]

What I find funny is when people take examples like Voyager or the Holoship, which were specifically designed to operate in the atmosphere, and then make the jump to "therefore, the Enterprise must be able to do this as well".

No, it doesn't mean that by default. Just because Voyager had landing gears doesn't mean the Enterprise has. Just because the Enterprise-D could separate doesn't mean the Enterprise-E can. Just because the Holoship, which is basically formed like a brick, can be hidden a couple of meters under lake water doesn't mean the Enterprise can hide hundred meters (because that's where the engineering section would be) under (potentially) salt water.

but if you can build a 700 meter starship, then why can't you build it on the ground.

That's the "we went to the moon, why can't I have a flying car" logic.

 

[Kemaiku]

Indicates that Starfleet ships can with little effort though.

 

[SeerSGB]

What I find funny is when people take examples like Voyager or the Holoship, which were specifically designed to operate in the atmosphere, and then make the jump to "therefore, the Enterprise must be able to do this as well".

No, it doesn't mean that by default. Just because Voyager had landing gears doesn't mean the Enterprise has. Just because the Enterprise-D could separate doesn't mean the Enterprise-E can. Just because the Holoship, which is basically formed like a brick, can be hidden a couple of meters under lake water doesn't mean the Enterprise can hide hundred meters (because that's where the engineering section would be) under (potentially) salt water.

but if you can build a 700 meter starship, then why can't you build it on the ground.

That's the "we went to the moon, why can't I have a flying car" logic.

Well this is a universe flying cars Along with gravity manipulation technology, forcefields, and the like. So tossing a few metric tons of metal into orbit should be child's play.

Well Scotty was bitching about salt-water damage. But otherwise, a starship is basically a submarine: a sealed environment. So real issue there, in terms of keeping the crew alive. And this goes back to different Enterprise, different specs. We don't know what is the norm in this timeline.

 

[cbspock]

What I find funny is when people take examples like Voyager or the Holoship, which were specifically designed to operate in the atmosphere, and then make the jump to "therefore, the Enterprise must be able to do this as well".

No, it doesn't mean that by default. Just because Voyager had landing gears doesn't mean the Enterprise has. Just because the Enterprise-D could separate doesn't mean the Enterprise-E can. Just because the Holoship, which is basically formed like a brick, can be hidden a couple of meters under lake water doesn't mean the Enterprise can hide hundred meters (because that's where the engineering section would be) under (potentially) salt water.

but if you can build a 700 meter starship, then why can't you build it on the ground.

That's the "we went to the moon, why can't I have a flying car" logic.

The Enterprise did operate in the atmosphere in the original series. It was low enough for an F104 to intercept it and try to shoot it down. The Enterprise D used meta phasic shields (WTF) to sit inside a star, and a phase cloak to go through an asteroid yet people flip out because Enterprise is sitting underwater. It looked cool though. So when nu Kirk gets to the planet with the Roman Empire and tells Flavius his ship is somewhere at sea, he isn't bs'ing


-Chris

 

[cbspock]

I would have accepted the nuEnterprise under water if it was a last desperate attempt in the finale of the film, not something casual in the opening teaser. Where it would have been made clear that it is insane, absolutely irregular and nearly impossible.

The Vengeance chases the Enterprise and Kirk decides to hide the ship on a planet under water, where he thinks Khan/Marcus would never look for a starship, until the warp engines or whatever are repaired. When it's time, the Enterprise rises from the waters to make a surprise attack.

That would have been cooler than the throwaway of the ship underwater in the opening teaser just to scare the crap out of a bunch of aliens. It would have been a pretty cool homage to Space Battlecruiser Yamato. Although Trek has done that before intentionally and unintentionally. Two cases the deflector dish used as a weapon against the borg, and stealing the Enterprise in Search of Spock was very similiar to the Yamato crew stealing their ship to stop the comet empire. The sequences are very similar with ships trying to stop them, and escaping the dock.


-Chris

 

[Belz...]

Why the fuck does this have to become a discussion of EVERYTHING Trek has done wrong?

Because, as people have pointed out numerous times before, if you're going to criticize one episode or movie for doing thing X, while simultaneously calling another episode or movie or series consistent and ignoring that it also did X, we're going to call you on it.

 

[Belz...]

The reason the ship being underwater bothers me is quite simply that I always think of the line from TMoST that refers to the ship not being designed to enter an atmosphere. The one time it did that I can recall, in "Tomorrow is Yesterday" it was a problem. It's a relatively minor annoyance for me, others not so much.

I think it's important to point out that it's a different Enterprise, built at a different date in a different timeline.

But it had no reason to be there at all. And no consequences for the ship either.

So ?

 

[Gonzo]

The reason the ship being underwater bothers me is quite simply that I always think of the line from TMoST that refers to the ship not being designed to enter an atmosphere. The one time it did that I can recall, in "Tomorrow is Yesterday" it was a problem. It's a relatively minor annoyance for me, others not so much.

I think it's important to point out that it's a different Enterprise, built at a different date in a different timeline.

But it had no reason to be there at all. And no consequences for the ship either.

So ?

I rather liked the watershot, if you are going to reveal yourself and break the prime directive why not do it in style.

 

[ATimson]

But otherwise, a starship is basically a submarine: a sealed environment. So real issue there, in terms of keeping the crew alive.

A submarine has to keep many atmospheres of pressure out. A starship has to keep one atmosphere of pressure in. Very different design problems.

 

[Kruezerman]

It was cool. Can't we leave it at that?

 

[SeerSGB]

But otherwise, a starship is basically a submarine: a sealed environment. So real issue there, in terms of keeping the crew alive.

A submarine has to keep many atmospheres of pressure out. A starship has to keep one atmosphere of pressure in. Very different design problems.

Still, basically, a sealed metal tube. For a society that has forcefields and gravity manipulation tech, it's pretty much a non issue.

It was cool. Can't we leave it at that?

Apparently not I can't recall any other shot in a Trek movie being dissected as much as this one has.

 

[anotherdemon]

A submarine has to keep many atmospheres of pressure out. A starship has to keep one atmosphere of pressure in. Very different design problems.

Shields and starship hulls have to keep out impact events in space (space junk can hit pretty hard due to its velocity, and it's not all going to come head on for the navigational deflector to stop it, which is still a "shield"), which is an order of magnitude higher than the pressure on the whole ship when submerged on an earth-like planet. A metal bolt hitting at 20 km/s is harder to protect against than water pressure (earth-like ocean), and we don't see this bothering starships in Trek.

Not to mention being able to withstand the most common threats in battle to some extent (which has shown to be true in Star Trek -- ships seem to be able to withstand a certain amount of battle damage), which again, will be far higher than the pressures of an earth-like planet's oceans.