Trek canon is dead. Thanx JJ!

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

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

It's also ho-hum and cliche-within-a-cliche as far as Trek is concerned.

 

[M'Sharak]

[me rambling on a lot]

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.

You're right, I could have worded that more clearly (if my brain had been less fuzzy. ) The shouting was from another quarter. Since you and trekkerguy have managed to reach a certain detente, if not complete agreement, I'll consider it settled for the moment.

 

[trekkerguy]

*Dances merrily*

 

[Qonos]

Well back on the topic, I don't see this as the Death of trek canon. Stories evolve over time. I stated this with proof in another thread when I talked about little red riding hood. Even the bible went through a myriad of changes before it got to the modern version we have today. There are books the Church didn't include in the "Modern" version of the bible, but they are still out there and they can still be found.

I seriously doubt we were ever going to get nothing but a reimagining of Star Trek seeing as that is how Hollywood has been doing things, and I think some of the canonists are working themselves into a tizzy even though in their hearts they knew the same thing. Nobody is ever going to tell the story the same way. This was proven in TOS itself with all the stuff people said were "Mistakes". I'm not going to write Trek the same as 3d Master is. Will I write a better TREK story? Well that isn't up for me to decide, that would be up to the people reaading the story to decide. Some would probably like it, others would probably come at me with pitchforks and want to lynch me. Abrams and crew have taken what they wanted to keep and toss what they felt hampered trek, and that's allowable because they have been tasked with making Trek viable again. There will be people who aren't going to like it, but when someone acts like their best friend has been shot in front of them and they had to watch them bleed to death (and yes that how some of you ARE ACTING) it does make me wonder about that persons mental state. It's like the guy who went to a meeting with a bunch of wrestlers and told them, crying "It's real to me" I'm a big fan of pro wrestling, but I know it's not real. I know it changes, Trek should be given that same realistic treatment. It's fiction and yes you're not going to like all the changes, but the old fiction doesn't disappear, it's still there, it just that universe is put on hold until some one decides they want to write something that happens in that universe.

I think TOS was something that was never fully explored due to a Networks myopic view, but I'm willing to take a look and see how Abrams and crew have done with this Alternate take on Trek before I rise the rabble and go to burn down the castle...

All I'm saying.

 

[M'Sharak]

[...]

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...

[...]

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.
[...]

[...]

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.
[...]

3D Master, I'd rather not have yet another thread derailed by the "Enterprise built on the ground/built in space" argument -- how many has it been, so far? Four? Five? Six? Since the topic is clearly very important to you, and since you seem unwilling to let it drop, and since you insist on arguing it from a detailed tech standpoint, might I suggest that rather than continuing to hijack threads on other, more general topics, you start your own thread on the question, and further suggest that such a technically-oriented discussion might be better suited for the Trek Tech forum than this one?

 

[3D Master]

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?

I've already explained a whole multitude of ways they could go do exact that. The problem is, the moment they DO, there are CONSEQUENCES. You see, this is STAR TREK, aka SCIENCE FICTION, logic and some basis in science fact needs to be part of it. This is not fantasy where you can just say "oh, it's magic", it requires an internal logic rooted in basic science. The moment you eliminate the gravity so completely it keeps people from dropping to their deaths if they trip, would mean they'd be working in zero-g, and NOT being in zero-g is exactly one of the so-called advantages there was building on the ground.

In short, it stops making sense.

Or the classic: you can't have your cake and eat it too.

There are consequences for doing certain things a certain way, you can't simply hand wave them out of the picture.

3D Master, I'd rather not have yet another thread derailed by the "Enterprise built on the ground/built in space" argument -- how many has it been, so far? Four? Five? Six? Since the topic is clearly very important to you, and since you seem unwilling to let it drop, and since you insist on arguing it from a detailed tech standpoint, might I suggest that rather than continuing to hijack threads on other, more general topics, you start your own thread on the question, and further suggest that such a technically-oriented discussion might be better suited for the Trek Tech forum than this one?

No, it wouldn't be. And I didn't derail anything, it's on topic.

 

[ST-One]

3D Master, I'd rather not have yet another thread derailed by the "Enterprise built on the ground/built in space" argument -- how many has it been, so far? Four? Five? Six? Since the topic is clearly very important to you, and since you seem unwilling to let it drop, and since you insist on arguing it from a detailed tech standpoint, might I suggest that rather than continuing to hijack threads on other, more general topics, you start your own thread on the question, and further suggest that such a technically-oriented discussion might be better suited for the Trek Tech forum than this one?

No, it wouldn't be. And I didn't derail anything, it's on topic.

Oh, you do have imagination after all.

 

[Genixx]

i wouldnt say canon is dead..imho. just tweaked.

i dont know what so many ppl are up in arms about. should make alot of ppl happy that this is going on. at least maybe now kirk wont go out like a punk in Generations. maybe he doesnt go into the nexus...cook eggs.. jump on a crumbling bridge just to fall to his death.

 

[M'Sharak]

3D Master, I'd rather not have yet another thread derailed by the "Enterprise built on the ground/built in space" argument -- how many has it been, so far? Four? Five? Six? Since the topic is clearly very important to you, and since you seem unwilling to let it drop, and since you insist on arguing it from a detailed tech standpoint, might I suggest that rather than continuing to hijack threads on other, more general topics, you start your own thread on the question, and further suggest that such a technically-oriented discussion might be better suited for the Trek Tech forum than this one?

No, it wouldn't be. And I didn't derail anything, it's on topic.

You misunderstand.

You have derailed already several threads not originally about the topic of the site of Enterprise's construction -- requiring some of them to be closed, I might add -- and your "on topic" has a way of crowding out everyone else's discussions in a more general thread by virtue of sheer volume. I do not wish to see that continue.

Start a separate thread; again, the volume of posts you yourself have made to date show that it's large enough to be a topic of its own. If you intend to use heavily technical arguments, as you have been, start the thread in Trek Tech, which is the forum appropriate to discussions of that nature.

 

[Ovation]

3D Master, I'd rather not have yet another thread derailed by the "Enterprise built on the ground/built in space" argument -- how many has it been, so far? Four? Five? Six? Since the topic is clearly very important to you, and since you seem unwilling to let it drop, and since you insist on arguing it from a detailed tech standpoint, might I suggest that rather than continuing to hijack threads on other, more general topics, you start your own thread on the question, and further suggest that such a technically-oriented discussion might be better suited for the Trek Tech forum than this one?

No, it wouldn't be.

Of course not. There's not a sufficiently large audience for your "performances" in that forum.

And I didn't derail anything, it's on topic.

Naturally--IF the "topic" is "hey, look how I can drag my own myopic 'concerns' into a discussion where they are really rather tangential and insignificant".

As for your OPINIONS about why building the ship on the ground is some sort of violation of "the core of Star Trek"? Not all that compelling. I can "imagine" the use of devices (like antigrav units seen in TOS, on a variety of scales) that would make it easy to work on the ground with massive, unwieldy objects AND also allow the principal advantages of working in the comfort of Earth gravity where warranted. The reverse, in space, would be much harder to achieve. See how easy it was to "imagine that"?

 

[Plomeek Broth]

Why do people get so upset about issues with canon? Not trying to be sarcastic. Just curious. I can enjoy any Trek regardless.

 

[3D Master]

3D Master, I'd rather not have yet another thread derailed by the "Enterprise built on the ground/built in space" argument -- how many has it been, so far? Four? Five? Six? Since the topic is clearly very important to you, and since you seem unwilling to let it drop, and since you insist on arguing it from a detailed tech standpoint, might I suggest that rather than continuing to hijack threads on other, more general topics, you start your own thread on the question, and further suggest that such a technically-oriented discussion might be better suited for the Trek Tech forum than this one?

No, it wouldn't be. And I didn't derail anything, it's on topic.

You misunderstand.

You have derailed already several threads not originally about the topic of the site of Enterprise's construction -- requiring some of them to be closed, I might add -- and your "on topic" has a way of crowding out everyone else's discussions in a more general thread by virtue of sheer volume. I do not wish to see that continue.

Start a separate thread; again, the volume of posts you yourself have made to date show that it's large enough to be a topic of its own. If you intend to use heavily technical arguments, as you have been, start the thread in Trek Tech, which is the forum appropriate to discussions of that nature.

It already was a topic on its own, so there's no point to making another one, simply necro-threading that thread should be all that's required - but of course, that's against the rules as well. So no, I'm not going to make another one. I'm not the one who "derails" these threads, if they were derailed, they were already derailed before I got there, I simply replied to something that had already "derailed the thread" continuing in the vein brought up. (Going against that is quite frankly ridiculous to begin with, every thread migrates around over multiple points; like any discussions does, fringe topics pop up and are discussed, stopping this would all but stop any discussion. It'd be the original poster and 4 or 5 posts and then it's over because we're now "derailing the thread".)

3D Master, I'd rather not have yet another thread derailed by the "Enterprise built on the ground/built in space" argument -- how many has it been, so far? Four? Five? Six? Since the topic is clearly very important to you, and since you seem unwilling to let it drop, and since you insist on arguing it from a detailed tech standpoint, might I suggest that rather than continuing to hijack threads on other, more general topics, you start your own thread on the question, and further suggest that such a technically-oriented discussion might be better suited for the Trek Tech forum than this one?

No, it wouldn't be.

Of course not. There's not a sufficiently large audience for your "performances" in that forum.

And I didn't derail anything, it's on topic.

Naturally--IF the "topic" is "hey, look how I can drag my own myopic 'concerns' into a discussion where they are really rather tangential and insignificant".

As for your OPINIONS about why building the ship on the ground is some sort of violation of "the core of Star Trek"? Not all that compelling. I can "imagine" the use of devices (like antigrav units seen in TOS, on a variety of scales) that would make it easy to work on the ground with massive, unwieldy objects AND also allow the principal advantages of working in the comfort of Earth gravity where warranted. The reverse, in space, would be much harder to achieve. See how easy it was to "imagine that"?

And the guys working there building those, can either trip and 2 seconds later they're dead, or have an anti-grav device that removes their own gravity - in which case they're working in zero-g, and thus NOT in the "comfort of Earth gravity" (which isn't a comfort anyway.)

See how we get those consequences and logic popping? Arriving to wanting your cake and eating it too comes up then? This isn't fantasy folks, or at least it shouldn't be. There's no, "magic did it", things actually have to make sense.

Also, those anti-grav devises break, or power is interrupted... and those ship crashes to the grown in less than 2 seconds, killing everyone, in, or on the ship. Should in space something like that happen... well, nothing happens, the ship will still just hang their without any problems.

Again; to anyone with an imagination and a little understanding of physics, this shouldn't be so hard to fathom.

 

[M'Sharak]

Say goodnight, thread.