Why on Earth?

Why is this an issue for some fans?

I loved that they built the old girl on Earth. Even later on in the movie you see a ship much like the TOS Enterprise sitting on top of a scaffold where Kirk boards the shuttle after giving away his motorbike.

If they can build them like this I'd assume they can all make surface landings, but why would you want to?

 

Oh wow. I didn't realize that was the same ship he had seen earlier. So how much time elapsed from when he boarded that shuttle till they first see her in space?

I did not realize that actually became a heated topic. Apologies as I only just joined. Any links to threads?

 

Because fans need to have issues. It's always been like that, and always will be. There's a several kind of fans, in any fandom, and the ones who argue and fight over stuff like this have lost the concept of what it's about; enjoying a show and its stories.

The creators of these shows and movies never set out to have people discuss things like this. They just want to tell a story, with interesting characters. When you start to think that how and where an item was build truly matters, you kinda lost perspective on things if you ask me.

I honestly never understood why people could argue over a ship on a planet, but hardly discus the actual points of a movie, like acting or directing. That hardly comes up, and when it does, it's a simple statement:
"JJ is a bad director."
You ask why.
"He just is."
But why?
"Because this isn't the Star Trek I like, so now JJ is a poopoo-head".

There's hardly anything rational about fans like that. So I've given up on joining discussions like that, or even taking them serious.

 

It's just like any time a superhero costume is altered ("the Enterprise was built on the ground?!?!" = "Superman lost his Red undies?!?!?!"). Any change to the canon (or perceived canon) results in fury from some quarters.

 

I am a fan. I'm a fan of Trek, Dr Who, Babylon 5 and a ton of other things.

I like to discuss these kind of topics but I'd never get so invested that I'd disown my love because a writer or director chose to do something a little different. I think that adds to the variety of storytelling rather then takes away from it.

 

Part of the issue is that the Enterprise was specifically designed by Matt Jefferies (with Gene Roddenberry's guidance/approval) to look like a vehicle that could only exist in space. That's why it's so top-heavy and made of separate modules with thin struts between them. It's just not a shape that could support its own weight under gravity. So showing it built on Earth is kind of missing, or at least disregarding, the conscious intent of its original designers.

There's also the logistics of it. It's a huge ship. Lifting something that massive out of Earth's gravity well would be really, really hard. The original idea was that the Enterprise's components were built at the San Francisco Navy Yards, then lifted into space individually and assembled in orbit.

Granted, when you're talking about a civilization that has gravity control, then neither of those issues is a dealbreaker. Antigrav fields would keep it from collapsing under its own weight and enable it to be levitated fairly easily into space. So it could be done. But one still has to wonder, why bother? It seems it would be simpler just to make it in space in the first place.

 

Building ships on the ground, or partially so, seemed to have been established in TNG. The Utopia Planitia Shipyards have Galaxy-class pieces on the ground, at least in one of the alternate realities shown in "Parallels" (pic of that in the Memory Alpha article).

 

Union rules. Spacesuits aren't in the contract. United Space Ship Workers local 112.

'

 

There are plenty of criticisms of JJ Trek that focus on the actual points of the movie. It's not just canon purism. Also, the defenses of JJ Trek tend to focus on just lobbing personal insults at other fans (in other words, implying that there there is something "wrong" with them for having a problem with the film) rather than actually defending the merits of the film.

 

To be fair, there's been a lot of sniping on both sides. How many times have we heard that nuTrek only appeals to those who are shallow, unsophisticated, easily impressed by "pew-pew" and explosions, and who don't understand what STAR TREK is really about?

And then there's the occasional suggestion that no true fan really likes nuTrek. We're just pretending to because we want to seem hip and trendy.

Just saying.

 

Coco Pops lol

check this ad out (0.20)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mXZTrOm3Lk

 

Me, I just like what I like. And I don't mind people not liking something either. It just kinda gets me when you decide to hate nuTrek because the Enterprise looks different. To me, personally, that's not a valid reason. But.... each to his own.

 

Agreed.

I don't mind folk having their opinions of whether or not they like a given take on a long held property or franchise. Opinions are great, because they are not facts.

I love the JJ Trek films. There are multitudes of others that do as well. And there are plenty who do not like the JJ movies.

But, when fans (on either side) try to overvalue their opinions to the mistaken point of somehow being fact, or when a fan tries to impose his/her will on another and says: "This is not Star Trek, and you cannot possibly be a fan/admirer of Star Trek if you think otherwise!" All that "true fan" and "unwashed masses" horsecrap....that's when I get irked.

 

Kirk's on his way to the Academy for the first time when he gets on the shuttle. By the time he's in his third or fourth year, he's on the Enterprise - I think that's the first time he sees it in space.

 

Three years, as stated in the caption in the very next scene.

 

I had no idea anyone had an issue with this.

The only reasonable reason I can think of for being against, and it's no reason to get heated, is that there are more resources, more accessible in space than on Earth. Secondly, if the ship is supposed to be in space in the end, it makes more sense to build it there in order to avoid the lift costs to orbit. However, cheap antigravity and cheap antimatter make the lift expense point meaningless. That leaves resources, but planets have sufficient resources, and a planet like Earth, which is not a colony, is bound to have more industry on its surface than in space.

The two best argument for building ships on a planet are gravity and air. Gravity means material won't just drift away if it's not tethered down, and in some ways that is very valuable, although a weak gravity like the Moon's is better (but there is dust and lack of air). Air means no need for space suits, and spacesuits make all manual tasks harder. A couple centuries from now a swarm of robots should be the work force which would eliminate most of the space suit issue, but if you have to use people, or if it's merely preferable, then it is preferable to use people in air, in gravity.

The Enterprise's shape is not suitable for surface landings, it would sit on three points: just under the deflector, a nacelle end, and the saucer edge. Very awkward. Even though it was built on a planet's surface it was supported in a fairly well distributed manner, so the three point position could lead to very high stresses on the hull. It would need a cradle to be sure of avoiding damage.

On the other hand, the USS Vengeance sat on San Fran just fine as far as we could see in the movie. But, all that means is the Vengeance an do that. Also, it was built in space as far as we know, unlike the Enterprise.

I've seen plenty of arguments for and against the film which don't revolve around insults, and plenty which do. I feel like people who insult other people over something like this must feel it is a threat to their own thinking and desires.

 

Haha I love it

0:20 Mr Spocks

 

Also that they managed to park the old girl under an ocean. That must have been one hell of a maneuver. Still I love it. I loved Into Darkness but I did have my own thoughts on that too and most of that well is for another thread in the proper forum..