I've heard the Foster rumour as well, but I've also heard it debunked (though never with Davidcgc's specific points). I could well believe either.
The took "Constructed at San Francisco Fleet Yards" too literally?
- Thread starter Kurgan
- Start date
I've heard the Foster rumour as well, but I've also heard it debunked (though never with Davidcgc's specific points). I could well believe either.
Nowhere Man
Commodore
They took the bank roberry/ twin towers scene out becouse of 9/11 as for Terminator , who know's . I personally believe that the teaser will be in the movie
Nowhere Man
Commodore
parts of the ship were constructed on earth then transported to space , then finished in orbit, I think it's safe to make that asumption. By transported I don't nesecarily mean using a transporter, but they might.
I couldn't imagine actually giving a crap where the ship was built. I do care what the ship looks like (to a point) and I do care about the uniforms and props...but mostly, I care that the story is good and the acting is good and that they make enough money to keep making movies!
I don't have my copy of Voyages of Imagination handy to provide the exact quote (but surely someone here could?), but in it the Pocket editor at the time states that to the best of his knowledge, Roddenberry wrote it solo. I tend to think he likely did for the same reasons David cgc enumerates.
Alan Dean Foster has denied having had anything to do with it whenever he's been asked.
Edited to add: Here's the exact quote I referred to above.
Last edited:
I love you! This is how I feel EXACTLY. I do want the ship and sets to look good, and I want it to look like it's Star Trek, BUT I can forgive an awful lot for a great story and acting.
Why?
Not everybody uses a ghostwriter, you know.
I remember what the TMP novelization was like. What *I* find unlikely is that Alan Dean Foster - or any decent novelist - could have written it.
Most writers don't.
I doubt that GR had the discipline or narrative skills at that point to deliver a publishable manuscript on deadline. If it wasn't cobbled together from fragments by a ghostwriter to begin with it was probably copy-edited to within an inch of its existence.
Agreed.
I don't get you people- you claim not to care, but you keep posting about how much you don't care, and how silly people are for responding to a topic... It's very odd!
There IS no reason why the ship couldn't be built on the surface of the planet, because there is nothing in the Star Trek universe to say that it couldn't. I wouldn't be surprised if they had on and off world construction sites. NASA does experiments in space with specific regards to making "things" in space, so the idea of something like that being done far off in the future is not so far fetched.
I bet the Wierd Science kids could have made a kick ass space babe if they made her in space- no gravity to pull things down! Someone should re-make that movie.
Probably not Joss Whedon...
Oh, I dunno. I never could make sense of that "take me where I cannot stand" lyric...
Well, the rumor going with these photos, based on the folks who witnessed all of this, is that the scene revolves around the delivery of the Enterprise to the Academy by the folks who built it. There's much running around and looking up at the sky, and possibly a landing of some very large vessel in the blue-screen area.
I can't imagine any way in which such a scenario might unnerve or upset canon-observant fans. Abrams and company have dodged another bullet.
I just don't know. There's a trailer revealing a significantly redesigned Enterprise and what is getting bitched about? The locaction and the use of welding, of all things. WTF?
They have no need to 'explain' why the ship is built on Earth. Why would they? It follows cannon and makes fine technical sense. And even if it didn't, they still don't have to justify it. Plus it's probably not going to be in the movie, anyway.
They have no need to 'explain' why the ship is built on Earth. Why would they? It follows cannon and makes fine technical sense. And even if it didn't, they still don't have to justify it. Plus it's probably not going to be in the movie, anyway.
I wonder though why are they using welding to put the ship together? Shouldn't there be a plasma-technobabble-thingamagick that would help construct the ship? It is the 23rd century after all!!
^ You can't know that, but you're beating a very dead horse with that. After the teaser came out there were LONG discussions on this board about the welding. Several theories emerged as to why they are welding on the Enterprise. One boils down to the teaser only being a metaphor which can't be taken literally. Another one was that the welders in the teaser are using a plasma (or whatever) welding technique that just looks like todays welding.
Sure, they could do it with nanotechology - let the little buggers "knit" the pieces together.
Cogley's Theory: The Enterprise will be built planetside, and then thousands of giant rockets arranged all over the globe will be used to push the planet Earth out from underneath it.
Either that or they'll just blow up the Earth to get it out of the way.