Trek canon is dead. Thanx JJ!

[M'Sharak]

And don't shout. I hate shouting.

WHAT IF IT'S SPOCK?

THAT'S DIFFERENT!

 

[DaveyNY]

And don't shout. I hate shouting.

WHAT IF IT'S SPOCK?

THAT'S DIFFERENT!

Wow....

I guess We managed to stir up quite a bit of Passion (trekerguy & I were never talking about IMAGINATION) with Our conversation.

Mostly, I was trying to get across the point to him (and Others) that perhaps he would better understand why the Folks around here that are called (kinda sneeringly most of the time) Canon-ist's, are so disappointed with Trek XI if he'd just take a moment to try to see it from their perspective, rather than just continue to negate their opinions and look down on them.

I was attempting to get him to widen is viewpoint and tone down the quick jabs and barbs that he injects into many of his posts (perhaps unwittingly, but he did become very defensive about it when I brought it up) toward those same Canon-ist's.
(which BTW, if you read my posts and take note of my signature, will show that I am only on the fringe of.)

I was using the example of differing levels of Passion as part of the discussion, to try to get him to acknowledge that perhaps their opinions are just as valid as his.

That's why, when he posted about how the Canon-ist's should (paraphrasing here) "...Embrace Trek XI not condemn it...", I was quick to point out that Embracing works both ways.

I don't think I completely succeeded in getting him to be completely accepting about drastically differing opinion's from his own around here, but I do hope that, at the very least, I got him to be a bit more open-minded and less confrontational about them.

=================================================================================

Now QONOS as for your comments...
<snip>

...And the fact that people tenaciously cling to a tv show to give their life balance and a center belies a deeper mental problem in them. I love Star Trek. I love Transformers, hell I'm a big Fan of Greatest American Hero, but I learned long ago that the only place I can find myself is within myself. Trek has some valuable messages, but it isn't sacred.

I've have never implied nor directly stated that Star Trek was some sacred religion and I certainly don't tenaciously cling to it for balance in my life. (nor do I believe that anybody else around here does.)

But what I have kinda-sorta implied is that there are many Folks around here (and in society in general) who feel that Star Trek has played a very important role in helping them grow and develop into the people they are today...
(And THAT is not necessarily a bad thing)
...which gives them the tendency to be a whole lot more Passionate about it, when drastic changes are made to it.

For you to imply that those Folks who do take Star Trek a bit more to heart, are some how mentally unstable, belies the fact that you, like some others around here, have any consideration for other's differing opinions.

Perhaps it's time to take a step back and consider just how hurtful and mean comments like that can be?

That also was an important point I was trying to convey during my conversation with trekerguy, it's NOT OK to post ones opinion around here when it's in a hurtful and mean manner.

 

[M'Sharak]

I guess We managed to stir up quite a bit of Passion (trekerguy & I were never talking about IMAGINATION) with Our conversation.

Mostly, I was trying to get across the point to him (and Others) that perhaps he would better understand why the Folks around here that are called (kinda sneeringly most of the time) Canon-ists, are so disappointed with Trek XI if he'd just take a moment to try to see it from their perspective, rather than just continue to negate their opinions and look down on them.

No, I saw what you were trying to do, and I support and encourage examining things from more than one side and trying to look at them from another person's point of view. I find that I tend to get a better grasp of something if I do this. It can be less easy, however, to get someone else to do it, if they are not so inclined.

I was attempting to get him to widen is viewpoint and tone down the quick jabs and barbs that he injects into many of his posts (perhaps unwittingly, but he did become very defensive about it when I brought it up) toward those same Canon-ists.
(which BTW, if you read my posts and take note of my signature, will show that I am only on the fringe of.)

I do read your posts and I do notice this.

I also notice that many posters (speaking generally here) tend to get very black-and-white about canon issues and may paint someone objecting to one particular aspect of a thing with the same broad brush as someone who bashes all of it. Less of this and more discernment is a good thing in discussion, I think; it can also lead to fewer instances of one's taking personally what was not so intended (which can often be the case when the discussion gets more heated.)

I was using the example of differeing levels of Passion as part of the discussion, to try to get him to acknowledge that perhaps their opinions are just as valid as his.

That's why, when he posted about how the Canon-ist's should (paraphrasing here) "...Embrace Trek XI not condem it...", I was quick to point out that Embracing works both ways.

I liked that "embracing works both ways" idea and said so here. I think the "differing levels of passion" part may not have got across quite as well as you intended.

I don't think I completely succeded in getting him to be completely accepting about drastically differing opinion's from his own around here, but I do hope that, at the very least, I got him to be a bit more open-minded and less confrontational about them.

You may well have, but I think that the conversational tangent overall was beginning to run up against the law of diminishing returns. Parts of it were not being heard or were being misunderstood. Sometimes in such cases, the best thing is to decide that you've made whatever points you were going to make on the subject as well as you could and then take a graceful exit. That almost happened once, but something kept it going perhaps a little longer than it needed to go. When it started to get shouty was where I decided to draw the line.

(Shouting Spock is still okay, but that's another thread.)

I hope all of this makes some kind of sense; it's getting to be close to the end of the day for me.

 

[DaveyNY]

I guess We managed to stir up quite a bit of Passion (trekerguy & I were never talking about IMAGINATION) with Our conversation.

Mostly, I was trying to get across the point to him (and Others) that perhaps he would better understand why the Folks around here that are called (kinda sneeringly most of the time) Canon-ists, are so disappointed with Trek XI if he'd just take a moment to try to see it from their perspective, rather than just continue to negate their opinions and look down on them.

No, I saw what you were trying to do, and I support and encourage examining things from more than one side and trying to look at them from another person's point of view. I find that I tend to get a better grasp of something if I do this. It can be less easy, however, to get someone else to do it, if they are not so inclined.

I was attempting to get him to widen is viewpoint and tone down the quick jabs and barbs that he injects into many of his posts (perhaps unwittingly, but he did become very defensive about it when I brought it up) toward those same Canon-ists.
(which BTW, if you read my posts and take note of my signature, will show that I am only on the fringe of.)

I do read your posts and I do notice this.

I also notice that many posters (speaking generally here) tend to get very black-and-white about canon issues and may paint someone objecting to one particular aspect of a thing with the same broad brush as someone who bashes all of it. Less of this and more discernment is a good thing in discussion, I think; it can also lead to fewer instances of one's taking personally what was not so intended (which can often be the case when the discussion gets more heated.)

I was using the example of differing levels of Passion as part of the discussion, to try to get him to acknowledge that perhaps their opinions are just as valid as his.

That's why, when he posted about how the Canon-ist's should (paraphrasing here) "...Embrace Trek XI not condom it...", I was quick to point out that Embracing works both ways.

I liked that "embracing works both ways" idea and said so here. I think the "differing levels of passion" part may not have got across quite as well as you intended.

I don't think I completely succeeded in getting him to be completely accepting about drastically differing opinion's from his own around here, but I do hope that, at the very least, I got him to be a bit more open-minded and less confrontational about them.

You may well have, but I think that the conversational tangent overall was beginning to run up against the law of diminishing returns. Parts of it were not being heard or were being misunderstood. Sometimes in such cases, the best thing is to decide that you've made whatever points you were going to make on the subject as well as you could and then take a graceful exit. That almost happened once, but something kept it going perhaps a little longer than it needed to go. When it started to get shouty was where I decided to draw the line.

(Shouting Spock is still okay, but that's another thread.)

I hope all of this makes some kind of sense; it's getting to be close to the end of the day for me.

Actually, since the original conversation (between trekerguy and myself) took place very, very, very early Sunday morning, we were pretty much alone during the discussion.

I don't remember either of Us shouting at each other (the shouting came much later from other quarters not involved in the original conversation.)

We both did became quite Passionate though (which was kinda-sorta my goal to prove my point), and it eventually led to somewhat of a mutual understanding (I hope.)

It all makes perfect sense to me and I totally agree with your assessment of things.

 

[3D Master]

Which is just plain bullshit.

Fanfiction and the books have been writing stories that not only adhere to continuity, but even USE continuity and things never told about them, to tell ever interesting stories.

It simply requires an IMAGINATION.

But it seems these days, such a thing is hard to come by.

Because, as we all know, taking a franchise in your own direction requires a great deal less imagination than following in the footsteps of everyone to come before these guys.

Yep. You see, it requires not that you learn what the franchise is about, it requires not you put effort into imagining a story that fits in it, it allows you to just stuff whatever formulaic crap you've been rewriting for the past decade and stuff 'em down a franchises' throat. It means you don't have to do any work, you can just crap all over previous people's work, and not bother doing any imagining of the setting at all.

The perfect example of this is the Enterprise being built on the Earth, to get this "ground it." Now to anyone with a bit of an imagination, or a little knowledge of real spaceflight and where it's headed, they know this is as far from "grounded" (unless it's the literal sense) as you can get. It is an negatively awe-inspiring level LACK of imagination, that Abrams and the writers could NOT imagine a ship or fleets of ships being built in space, nor imagine anyone else (apart from geeks) being able to imagine it, that they had to "ground", or in other words anchor the movie in the, no THEIR, unimaginative for them to make the movie.

It is unbelieveable how UN Star Trek, and UNimaginative this is; that they can't even imagine REALITY. They didn't need to imagine this, all they had to do, was watch a few documentaries on the real life plans for space flight of real life scientists and engineers. And they couldn't even bring up the imagination to do THAT research.

It is utterly shocking, and wrong in so many ways I can't even put it properly into words. And that's not even talking about the next step, applying the logic, projecting to the 23rd century and start working out, what kind of horrifyingly depressing society would have to produce a 23rd century's level technology where nobody is willing to work in space and build these ships. Even without that terrifying distopian future, the movie's lack of any kind of imagination is enough to put it on "Warning! Do not watch! This is crap!" list, but with it, for a Star Trek movie to boot. It takes everything that Star Trek is, stands for, it's very heart, and throw it an a shredder and watch it get torn to bits.

And 3d you use the word imagination like a catch phrase which makes me doubt the depth of yours. I've been a writer, a painter, a cook and and entertainer. I have created and I have seen things created, only critics expose on how uncreative a creative persons efforts can be.

Did Jackson Pollock lack imagination? What you find unimaginative I find refreshing, because I've seen the extent of what can and has been done in the "Prime" timeline from Trek and no matter what I still think the blind adherance to trek canon is one of it's faults. The writers of TOS never worried about canon, Canon came after because fans wanted stability, because fans can be a very unimaginative lot who fear change and never strive to say "What If" IF is the most powerful word in the english language.

Old Trek canon isn't dead, it's just living with Elvis, JFK and Andy Kauffman in Hawiaii

To Abrams and co., by their own words and admissions, ships being built in space, was too imaginative and too fancy a flight, to make the movie too geeky to be, so they had to ground the movie in "their unimaginative" and grounded the Enterprise, metaphorically and literally, by having it built planetside.

That pretty much sums up just how "imaginative" Abrams and co. were. Also known as: no imagination at all.

 

[DaveyNY]

Which is just plain bullshit.

Fanfiction and the books have been writing stories that not only adhere to continuity, but even USE continuity and things never told about them, to tell ever interesting stories.

It simply requires an IMAGINATION.

But it seems these days, such a thing is hard to come by.

Because, as we all know, taking a franchise in your own direction requires a great deal less imagination than following in the footsteps of everyone to come before these guys.

Yep. You see, it requires not that you learn what the franchise is about, it requires not you put effort into imagining a story that fits in it, it allows you to just stuff whatever formulaic crap you've been rewriting for the past decade and stuff 'em down a franchises' throat. It means you don't have to do any work, you can just crap all over previous people's work, and not bother doing any imagining of the setting at all.

The perfect example of this is the Enterprise being built on the Earth, to get this "ground it." Now to anyone with a bit of an imagination, or a little knowledge of real spaceflight and where it's headed, they know this is as far from "grounded" (unless it's the literal sense) as you can get. It is an negatively awe-inspiring level LACK of imagination, that Abrams and the writers could NOT imagine a ship or fleets of ships being built in space, nor imagine anyone else (apart from geeks) being able to imagine it, that they had to "ground", or in other words anchor the movie in the, no THEIR, unimaginative for them to make the movie.

It is unbelieveable how UN Star Trek, and UNimaginative this is; that they can't even imagine REALITY. They didn't need to imagine this, all they had to do, was watch a few documentaries on the real life plans for space flight of real life scientists and engineers. And they couldn't even bring up the imagination to do THAT research.

It is utterly shocking, and wrong in so many ways I can't even put it properly into words. And that's not even talking about the next step, applying the logic, projecting to the 23rd century and start working out, what kind of horrifyingly depressing society would have to produce a 23rd century's level technology where nobody is willing to work in space and build these ships. Even without that terrifying distopian future, the movie's lack of any kind of imagination is enough to put it on "Warning! Do not watch! This is crap!" list, but with it, for a Star Trek movie to boot. It takes everything that Star Trek is, stands for, it's very heart, and throw it an a shredder and watch it get torn to bits.

And 3d you use the word imagination like a catch phrase which makes me doubt the depth of yours. I've been a writer, a painter, a cook and and entertainer. I have created and I have seen things created, only critics expose on how uncreative a creative persons efforts can be.

Did Jackson Pollock lack imagination? What you find unimaginative I find refreshing, because I've seen the extent of what can and has been done in the "Prime" timeline from Trek and no matter what I still think the blind adherance to trek canon is one of it's faults. The writers of TOS never worried about canon, Canon came after because fans wanted stability, because fans can be a very unimaginative lot who fear change and never strive to say "What If" IF is the most powerful word in the english language.

Old Trek canon isn't dead, it's just living with Elvis, JFK and Andy Kauffman in Hawiaii

To Abrams and co., by their own words and admissions, ships being built in space, was too imaginative and too fancy a flight, to make the movie too geeky to be, so they had to ground the movie in "their unimaginative" and grounded the Enterprise, metaphorically and literally, by having it built planetside.

That pretty much sums up just how "imaginative" Abrams and co. were. Also known as: no imagination at all.

I wouldn't call it a Lack of Imagination, I would call it an instance where Their Imagination's felt that Our Imagination's weren't worth the 40 Years of Enjoyment many of Us have put into them.

It's more of a case of Them feeling that New Audience's won't care to be THAT Imaginitaive.

 

[trekkerguy]

You know what, that's what some of us so-called "canonistas" have been saying for a long time. Funny thing is, reinventing Star Trek for a new era, does NOT require even one breach of continuity. You can do the reinventing without a single continuity error.

Meh, I could careless about being anal. NuTrek looks awesome and I can't wait.

Welcome to "new Trek", aka: pile of junk, just like the previous two films and the last series.

All opinion, no fact. Jolan Tru sir.

 

[Butters]

The perfect example of this is the Enterprise being built on the Earth, to get this "ground it." Now to anyone with a bit of an imagination, or a little knowledge of real spaceflight and where it's headed, they know this is as far from "grounded" (unless it's the literal sense) as you can get. It is an negatively awe-inspiring level LACK of imagination, that Abrams and the writers could NOT imagine a ship or fleets of ships being built in space, nor imagine anyone else (apart from geeks) being able to imagine it, that they had to "ground", or in other words anchor the movie in the, no THEIR, unimaginative for them to make the movie.

It is unbelieveable how UN Star Trek, and UNimaginative this is; that they can't even imagine REALITY. They didn't need to imagine this, all they had to do, was watch a few documentaries on the real life plans for space flight of real life scientists and engineers. And they couldn't even bring up the imagination to do THAT research.

It is utterly shocking, and wrong in so many ways I can't even put it properly into words. And that's not even talking about the next step, applying the logic, projecting to the 23rd century and start working out, what kind of horrifyingly depressing society would have to produce a 23rd century's level technology where nobody is willing to work in space and build these ships. Even without that terrifying distopian future, the movie's lack of any kind of imagination is enough to put it on "Warning! Do not watch! This is crap!" list, but with it, for a Star Trek movie to boot. It takes everything that Star Trek is, stands for, it's very heart, and throw it an a shredder and watch it get torn to bits.

No. Again. Utter bollocks.

You are claiming that building on the ground is unadventureous and destroys the heart of Trek because building on Earth represents a society not prepared to work in space and is therefore dystopian.

To everybody else, building on Earth represents a society that has overcome the technological and logistical barriers and can build huge and powerful vessels in their back yard. By your reasoning, they'd then use it as a burger bar because they're too affraid to go anywhere else.

Real space flight is headed toward building tiny cramped manned and unmanned orbital platforms, built in small sections, propelled into orbit by chemical explosions, and assembled by astronauts. How is this relevant to a society with the warp drive, antigravity, forcefields, teleporters and whatever? Any references to real world space flight principles are anachronistic in trek. Its a different world.

You are the one being unimaginative, not the creative team. You are also nitpicking a trivial point based on your own illogical conclusions.

 

[3D Master]

The perfect example of this is the Enterprise being built on the Earth, to get this "ground it." Now to anyone with a bit of an imagination, or a little knowledge of real spaceflight and where it's headed, they know this is as far from "grounded" (unless it's the literal sense) as you can get. It is an negatively awe-inspiring level LACK of imagination, that Abrams and the writers could NOT imagine a ship or fleets of ships being built in space, nor imagine anyone else (apart from geeks) being able to imagine it, that they had to "ground", or in other words anchor the movie in the, no THEIR, unimaginative for them to make the movie.

It is unbelieveable how UN Star Trek, and UNimaginative this is; that they can't even imagine REALITY. They didn't need to imagine this, all they had to do, was watch a few documentaries on the real life plans for space flight of real life scientists and engineers. And they couldn't even bring up the imagination to do THAT research.

It is utterly shocking, and wrong in so many ways I can't even put it properly into words. And that's not even talking about the next step, applying the logic, projecting to the 23rd century and start working out, what kind of horrifyingly depressing society would have to produce a 23rd century's level technology where nobody is willing to work in space and build these ships. Even without that terrifying distopian future, the movie's lack of any kind of imagination is enough to put it on "Warning! Do not watch! This is crap!" list, but with it, for a Star Trek movie to boot. It takes everything that Star Trek is, stands for, it's very heart, and throw it an a shredder and watch it get torn to bits.

No. Again. Utter bollocks.

You are claiming that building on the ground is unadventureous and destroys the heart of Trek because building on Earth represents a society not prepared to work in space and is therefore dystopian.

To everybody else, building on Earth represents a society that has overcome the technological and logistical barriers and can build huge and powerful vessels in their back yard. By your reasoning, they'd then use it as a burger bar because they're too affraid to go anywhere else.

And they're wrong. Gravity is gravity, and takes power or tether to undo the gravity's effect on a construction. It breaks, it falls, it crushes, it kills, it is destroyed in the process. Also, one little trip, and 2 seconds later your dead.

Which doesn't even address the problem, that for centuries these ships WERE apparently built in space, BEFORE all technological and logistical barriers were solved, and that entire infra structure, starbases, space docks, construction yards and all the people living there, suddenly decided to say: "Well, we don't need these jobs in space anymore, or a place to live, FU we're going back to the planet (no matter the fact that houses still have to be built for them) and will only work on the planet, and you better make sure there's some work there."

Anyone who thinks that it's great that ships are built on the ground, are unimaginative people who cannot imagine how gravity is always a massive detriment and danger when building large structures - especially when part of the structure is essentially unsupported. It is people who cannot imagine how space has so much to offer, both professionally and recreationally.

Real space flight is headed toward building tiny cramped manned and unmanned orbital platforms, built in small sections, propelled into orbit by chemical explosions, and assembled by astronauts. How is this relevant to a society with the warp drive, antigravity, forcefields, teleporters and whatever? Any references to real world space flight principles are anachronistic in trek. Its a different world.

No, it's the same world, only later in time. Which means that all the infrastructure and the people living in space (totally regardless of whether they worked there) of that time before the anti-gravity and forcefiles and stuff, would still be present.

And they just decided to stop using that, and stiff all those people living there.

And, oh yeah, NO, real space flight is NOT headed toward tiny cramped orbital platforms etc. etc., that's what it IS right NOW.

It is HEADED toward for example, large, spacious luxury liners/space stations, where people can book large comfy luxurious suites, the liner also containing a magnificent, wide, near 720 degree open outlook in space disco. To name but one example of the many.

You are the one being unimaginative, not the creative team. You are also nitpicking a trivial point based on your own illogical conclusions.

No, I'm not the one being unimaginative, I'm EXTREMELY imaginative, I've imagination after imagination of all kinds of possibilities, INCLUDING building on the ground AND IMAGINING WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN, and summarily rejecting it from what that imagination tells me as anything that could be Star Trek.

It is further absolutely incredible how you continue to defend the imagination of the "creative" team, when they tell you straight to your face: "We could not imagine a ship being built in space, it was too out there and hokey, and so what convinced us to do the movie was when we could take out that what we could not imagine, "ground it" in the unimaginative, and build the ship on the ground."

They tell you this straight to your face, and still you try to deny this fact, it's amazing, absolutely. Denial, it isn't just a river in Egypt, folks.

And no, this, is NOT a trivial point.

You see, space docks, starbases, forget them, they are no longer being built. After all, if you lift off a ship from the ground, and it's supposedly better/cheaper/safer or whatever to build them on the ground, it would also be much better, to simply fly the ship to the ground and set it down, then repair it there.

So every space station you've ever seen in Star Trek: erase them with your minds, they no longer exist.

 

[Butters]

Your entire argument is based on what YOU imagine. We have not seen orbital construction facilities in Trek before so its afe to assume they don't exist. Later inclusions in future trek may disprove this. Nothing in Trek has even hinted that the ship was built in orbit, but we have seen it being built on Earth.

We HAVE to build in space because we can't get big structures up there in one piece. Star Fleet can do whatever the hell it likes, it has practically unlimited energy and resources and the technology to meet any challenge an Earthbound construction site might produce.

This film shows the ship built on Earth. It violates no earlier instances of Trek continuity and violates no laws of nature. Theres nothing adventurous about building space if you don't have to, Trek society has progressed beyond silly 21st Century notions. Does Kirk shower on one leg with his clothes on? I'm mean, it would be easier to stand on two feet and be naked, but thats hardly the spirit of trek, and we never saw anyone naked in the shower.

 

[SPCTRE]

We have not seen orbital construction facilities in Trek before so its afe to assume they don't exist.

Utopia Planitia?

 

[Butters]

We have not seen orbital construction facilities in Trek before so its afe to assume they don't exist.

Utopia Planitia?

We haven't seen these orbital facilities.

I read the linked article but unless I can be directed to a line of dialogue or a clear image of these facilities I'll have to take them as speculative.

Utopia Planitia is a region on the surface of Mars, the visuals of the Enterprise-D under construction in 'Booby Trap' were an enclosed environment that could have been on surface or in orbit but there was no conclusive dialogue either way.

 

[SPCTRE]

We have not seen orbital construction facilities in Trek before so its afe to assume they don't exist.

Utopia Planitia?

We haven't seen these orbital facilities.

I read the linked article but unless I can be directed to a line of dialogue or a clear image of these facilities I'll have to take them as speculative.

Utopia Planitia is a region on the surface of Mars, the visuals of the Enterprise-D under construction in 'Booby Trap' were an enclosed environment that could have been on surface or in orbit but there was no conclusive dialogue either way.

We get a pretty good look at both the orbital and the planetary construction facilities in VOY: "Relativity".

 

[Butters]

Utopia Planitia?

We haven't seen these orbital facilities.

I read the linked article but unless I can be directed to a line of dialogue or a clear image of these facilities I'll have to take them as speculative.

Utopia Planitia is a region on the surface of Mars, the visuals of the Enterprise-D under construction in 'Booby Trap' were an enclosed environment that could have been on surface or in orbit but there was no conclusive dialogue either way.

We get a pretty good look at both the orbital and the planetary construction facilities in VOY: "Relativity".

I don't remember ever watching "Relativity" So I'll take your word, however, a quick look here reveals more about Martian starship facilities:

Utopia Planitia is a vast lava plain on the planet Mars, and location of Utopia colony as well as the surface structures of the starship construction facility, the Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards, one of the Federation's most extensive construction yards. Probably, all surface-based facilities are also part of the Martian colonies.

and

In 2370, a partially-constructed Galaxy-class starship was housed in the surface facilities of Utopia Planitia. (TNG: "Parallels")

and

The Utopia Planitia plain was also the landing site of the 20th century Earth probe Viking 2. The painting of the surface facilities in TNG: "Parallels" was by Rick Sternbach and Michael Okuda, where they used "paper to create futuristic looking city structures" and separated a Galaxy-class ship across the structure. [1]

To me, the evidence that some ships are built on the ground is quite conclusive. Even then, some ships may have been built in orbit, some on Mars, some on Europa. The Enterprise though, the original, was built on Earth and there is nothing to contradict that.

Is there a screengrab from 'Relativity' anywhere?

 

[SPCTRE]

Is there a screengrab from 'Relativity' anywhere?

There you go:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v209/j3tstr34m/UtopiaPlanitiaFleetYards.jpg

[converting image to link to reduce screen-stretching. - M']

I'm not arguing for either side here.

 

[Butters]

Is there a screengrab from 'Relativity' anywhere?

There you go:

Cheers. I'd not seen that before.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Honestly, a lot of these ideas that the traditionalists insist "take more imagination" are repetitive, unimaginative and boring.

 

[3D Master]

Your entire argument is based on what YOU imagine.

No, it isn't. It's based on a whole lot more.

We have not seen orbital construction facilities in Trek before so its afe to assume they don't exist. Later inclusions in future trek may disprove this. Nothing in Trek has even hinted that the ship was built in orbit, but we have seen it being built on Earth.

Except that we have, over and over and over again. Space dock Starbase 1, McKinley station, the station never named that the Enterprise-B was launched from, the station the Enterprise was refitted in and launched from in TMP, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Not that it matters.

We HAVE to build in space because we can't get big structures up there in one piece. Star Fleet can do whatever the hell it likes, it has practically unlimited energy and resources and the technology to meet any challenge an Earthbound construction site might produce.

Strictly speaking, yes. However, removing gravity altogether during construction (which can still fail, and you get back to that original problem you'd have with the ship alone if it fails), however this also means that the construction workers have to work in zero-g. And thus the one advantage you have as claimed by people here (falsely, but still) that you'd be working in a gravity environment that we humans are born into would be gone, because you'd be working in the same zero-g you'd be working in space that you went down to Earth to, to escape.

Aka: it doesn't make any sense at all. Not a one.

This film shows the ship built on Earth. It violates no earlier instances of Trek continuity and violates no laws of nature.

Doesn't matter. Continuity is not an issue, the very heart of what Star Trek is though, is.

Theres nothing adventurous about building space if you don't have to, Trek society has progressed beyond silly 21st Century notions. Does Kirk shower on one leg with his clothes on? I'm mean, it would be easier to stand on two feet and be naked, but thats hardly the spirit of trek, and we never saw anyone naked in the shower.

Except of course, for that annoying problem that building in space would be EASIER than building on the ground in a myriad of ways, not to mention safer. In short, BUILDING IN SPACE is showering on TWO legs, while BUILDING ON THE GROUND is showering on ONE leg.

Especially considering all the infrastructure that is still up in space from that silly 21st, and 22nd, and earlier 23rd centuries.

Which leaves three reasons why they would be choosing to collectively migrate back to the planet and refuse to work in space:

1. Collective stupidity.

2. Collective irrational fear and ineducation about space.

3. Collective apathy for anything having to do with space.

Which a. wouldn't produce the Federation and an exploring humanity, and b. is pessimistic and not optimistic.

Honestly, a lot of these ideas that the traditionalists insist "take more imagination" are repetitive, unimaginative and boring.

It's odd, isn't it, that the writers themselves tell you the exact opposite.

 

[archeryguy1701]

At this stage, there's no point in really arguing or losing sleep over this. All I need to know is that it is being built on earth, and that in the 23rd century, they found a way to work. How did they make it work? How did they make it safer? How do they get the ships into orbit? I don't know, but this would probably be a good point to start using a little bit of that imagination, don't you agree, 3D Master?

In the end, ground built vs space built isn't going to ruin the movie for me, or probably even take me out of the moment.

 

[trekkerguy]

I don't think I completely succeeded in getting him to be completely accepting about drastically differing opinion's from his own around here, but I do hope that, at the very least, I got him to be a bit more open-minded and less confrontational about them.

Your approach didn't work.

Trying to get one to see something from anothers perspective is
going to be rather difficult when you are trying to equate that with
a level of passion.

A better aproach may have been to accept we may both be just as
passionate towards Star Trek, with differing views on it. But because
of the angle you took on it it made it very hard for me to see what it
was you were trying to say.


Now, I do accept that their are different perspectives regarding the
film, I simply find alot of them to be irrational. Mine doesn't really
matter I suppose, I havn't been watching as long. But the more I
watch TOS the more excited I get about Star Trek, because of how
good TOS is and how much I love it. But we all have our views and I'll
respect yours.