big F Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 Arc welders with old time-y welding goggles in the, what, 24th century? The retro grimeyness doesn't really fit in with the established visual continuity of a TOS-era Star Trek... Yup all that in space dock without any space suits. no 1 "engineer we need that pannel welded in place" engineer "but sir I dont have a space suit" no 1 "hold your breath son" engineer "f@!$% A%&*&&" no1 muttering under breath" Good dam new union types never had this problem in the old days" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundown Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 Yup all that in space dock without any space suits. Yeah, I sort of expected space suits and a space dock too. Silly Abrams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sumdumgai Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 Damn you all for making me want to get TOS box sets...speaking of which, how are the DVD's held in those bulbus yellow, bue, & red cases? Digipack? Thinpaks? I'm going to wait until actual footage is shown before I deciede, but so far I'm not hating this movie as much as I thought I was going to, may actually go see it. TOS box sets are held in place in those bulbous cases by an internal frame. It holds a thing plastic flip books that holds the dvds and fits inside of a thick paper sleeve. There's a little foldable booklet thing that has a list of episodes and brief summaries. I saw the trailer this morning when I went to see Cloverfield. So awesome seeing it in the theater. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeszekely Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 Teaser trailer's fine. I mean, why read into it so much? It's just a teaser. If the welders were wearing space suits, it'd have given the trailer away. The dramatic impact of the trailer is that you don't really know what's going on until they pan back and you're like "That's the Enterprise!" It's slightly more impressive in motion than in the stills, where you can see the turbines in the unfinished Busard collectors spinning. Anyway, just like Transformers had that teaser with the rover on Mars getting kicked that really didn't show anything, this teaser isn't meat to show anything. Closer to its Christmas release, I'm sure we'll see more plot-relevant trailers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hikuro Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 Doesn't look bad....I thought from what was seen was cool, I can't complain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morpheus Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Just saw the trailer, I think they're making a real scale Enterprise on the studio . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EXO Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Ummm, may I be so bold to suggest that they are in atmosphere? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingNor Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 That was, what they call in the biz, "Special Effects." Most people havn't heard about it yet, but I know a few directors. Sometimes things on screen look real, but they're actually fake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundown Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Is it practical to build something the size and shape of the Enterprise in atmosphere? I honestly don't know. Seems like you would have to build pretty massive, awkward structures to support it if you were building it in Earth's atmosphere, given gravity, then somehow get it in space. Using skeletal stardocks in space for construction seem like a much better solution. Are Trek starships even atmosphere capable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dobber Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 There is a discussion about this over at SSM. One of the trekkies said that the Enterprise did have many/most of it's components built on earth and then they were launched into space for final assembly/construction. Don't know if this is true/cannon, but I'm not about to get into an argument over it with a Trekkie/Trekker. They know infinantly more about Trek than I ever will. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EXO Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 I guess it's easier to belive that Abrams is an idiot, than it is to believe that they are building this thing in Earths atmosphere. I remember this cartoon once where a giant space ship crash landed on earth and they rebuilt it on the Island that it crashed on before it took off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoryHolmes Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Ummm, may I be so bold to suggest that they are in atmosphere? No. I guess it's easier to belive that Abrams is an idiot, than it is to believe that they are building this thing in Earths atmosphere. Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sumdumgai Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 This is what memory-alpha says about the Enterprise: "The vessel registered NCC-1701, which was constructed in San Francisco and launched in 2245, was christened the Enterprise." linky And that info was up before the teaser trailer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 I'm going to have the disagree with that. A lot of the really early TOS stuff just doesn't work and conflicts with common sense/later things. Look at 1701-A's plaque. It says "San Francisco Fleet Yards". Which is known to be one of the main Federation yards in orbit above San Francisco. The original 1701 plaque also says it's a "starship class" vessel. Which is wrong/stupid according to every other Trek canon source ever. 1701-A's plaque is obviously intended to be a more "correct" and updated plaque than the 1701's, thus why it's built in the same place. Ent D was built at Utopia Planitia YARDS, orbiting Utopia Planitia. (a lot of people get that messed up too). IMHO, no decent-sized starship is built in the atmosphere, or even parts of it. They are built in space, and the yards are named for the place they're in geosynchronous orbit above. But they often omit "yards" when saying where it's built because you don't need to say it. If someone says a ship was built at Bajor, they know they mean the Antares yards orbiting Bajor, not Bajor itself. Utopia Planitia means the yard above it, not the plateau itself. San Francisco--the yards in orbit, not next to the Golden Gate Bridge. Of course, there's still a problem--Oberth class ships are specifically said to have been built/launched from the Baikonur Cosmodrome. Which is a real place. Maybe very small ships can be? Or, since it seems every fleet yard has a "matching" base on the ground that presumably launches up supplies once in a while, maybe the Baikonur Cosmodrome of 2240 or whatever is both the original ground based facility, plus the added-much-later orbital assembly yards. But retains the original name due to historical importance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoveringCheesecake Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 I guess there's a screenshot of the interior of one of the corridors at http://www.ncc-1701.com/ The corridors look like they are from the Galactica. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeszekely Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Maybe space suits are too bulky and unwieldy for arc welding. Maybe they use force fields to keep a pressurized atmosphere inside the dry dock. I remember this cartoon once where a giant space ship crash landed on earth and they rebuilt it on the Island that it crashed on before it took off. And it's worth noting that a Constitution-class vessel is, what, a fifth the size of the Macross? Are Trek starships even atmosphere capable? Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugimon Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 The teaser definitely makes it look like they were building the enterprise on the ground. And I think people are missing the point. The point of the trailer was misdirection... make it look like something other than a ST movie until the big reveal and then close with the humorous "under construction". But then again, I know there are legions of trekkies, hold up'd in their parent's basements... just looking for something to nerd out about. What's to say this shot will even be in the final cut? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 It won't. The point is it's so "wrong" from both a fan and scientific/physics/realism point of view that it's well worth bitching about. Plus the fact that if it's any indication, it very well could end up having Silverhawks-level of "even a 6 year old knows that's not how space works" problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugimon Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 It won't. The point is it's so "wrong" from both a fan and scientific/physics/realism point of view that it's well worth bitching about. Plus the fact that if it's any indication, it very well could end up having Silverhawks-level of "even a 6 year old knows that's not how space works" problems. What??? Where do you get that? There's nothing even moving in the shot, there's nothing to suggest it was in space and there's nothing to suggest that the space physics are going to be wonky. Again... missing the point of the trailer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EXO Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Maybe space suits are too bulky and unwieldy for arc welding. Maybe they use force fields to keep a pressurized atmosphere inside the dry dock. And it's worth noting that a Constitution-class vessel is, what, a fifth the size of the Macross? Yes. Yeah worth noting that they're both make believe and neither could fly in reality.. I shouldnt argue with ST people... I might cause a wrinkle in their one piece pajamas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsu legato Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 I'm glad that at least Eugimon gets the point of the trailer. Next topic: The factory in the T2 teaser: worthy extrapolation of Skynet technology, or childhood rape? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeszekely Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Yeah worth noting that they're both make believe and neither could fly in reality.. I shouldnt argue with ST people... I might cause a wrinkle in their one piece pajamas. You're arguing with me? But I'm agreeing with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sumdumgai Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Earth, space, whatever. There've been so many inconsistencies throughout Star Trek, that it's built on the ground isn't going to get my underwear in a bunch. Like Scotty saw Kirk die in Generations, but in that one TNG episode, he believes that Kirk took the Enterprise out of storage and came to rescue him. I'm just pleased with the way the Enterprise is looking. It's going to be a long wait for me for this movie... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EXO Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 You're arguing with me? But I'm agreeing with you. oh ok... I took it in a totally wrong way... EXO = retarded. More retarded than an ST fan? probably... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundown Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 I dunno. That shot of the Enterprise-in-construction sure seems like a lot of model or CG work for a mere teaser trailer meant only to make a suggestive point but won't actually be in the movie. Before someone posits that the shot itself might be in the movie but not the arc welders, the shot looks like the Enterprise is in atmosphere as well, and not in vacuum, given the plumes of smoke we see. So if that's true, then it sort of defeats any reason why the goofy looking arc welders won't be in the movie as well, outside of "Abrams probably isn't that silly, and hopefully they'll be replaced by workers that actually look like they belong to 300 years from now." I hope you're right, though the evidence seems to suggest that these are actually shots from the movie. Would be glad to be wrong though. I do have to say the Enterprise itself looks rather good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radd Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 I used to love Trek. Far too much, really. If I recall correctly, much of the ship's construction took place in space, however many jobs were easier done on Earth, with gravity and an atmosphere and all that. Or maybe that was just the refit? Seriously, though, I think people are getting a bit too much into this little debate. As far as I'm concerned, earthside shipyard where a massive starship is being constructed in a very gritty, industrial looking old-timey fashion is all kinds of win and awesome. I'm looking forward to seeing the teaser tomorrow when I go see Cloverfield. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffalobob77 Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Even though I'm pretty sure I see city lights in the background maybe it could be like a dry dock for space with atmosphere inside. Then they could have construction options for both environments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
promethuem5 Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Honestly, the only things that have ever really kept me hooked in ST are the technical marvel side of the ships, the future Earth info we get, and the sound of how awesome Kirk is... the teaser was neat visually, even if technically silly... but plot-wise i have zero expectations. Shatner's the only Captain I need... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big F Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 I remember this cartoon once where a giant space ship crash landed on earth and they rebuilt it on the Island that it crashed on before it took off. What cartoon is that it sounds really cool Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radd Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Finally saw the teaser myself when I went to see Cloverfield. I loved it. Pretty much exactly what I'd hoped after hearing the descriptions. I've still little faith in the movie being any good, but I expect the effects to be pretty. We'll see. Maybe they'll surprise us all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mechwarrior Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 relax guys, its fiction : ) \ actually, just padding my post count, i think this movie based on FICTION will be awesome, but keep discussing, i am finding it amusing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight26 Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Physics in Star Trek has always been bad, especially their reliance on warp drive and teleporters, but let's not get into that now. Anyway building a ship the size and configuration of the enterprise is just foolish for a variety of reasons, I've argued about this enough on SFM. I can rationalize building certain components on the ground and then lifting them, but in a controlled white room environment, not in an open air drydock. I agree that this trailer is just a teaser and the fact that they are using the Koerner-prize could be even more misdirection but that doesn't change the fact that building a starship on planet, especially after canon shows that earlier craft were built in orbital spacedocks (NX-01/02/etc...), is just stupid. And as for EXOs comment about rebuilding a crashed ship on planet you are looking at an entirely different situation. The Macross design was far more solid and given the technology of the earth at the time of its crash it makes sense that it was rebuilt on the ground prior to relaunch given that they did not have the ability to tow it into orbit first. The Federation of Star Trek has no such excuse, of course then again, as iconic a design as it is, most trek starship designs are just plain stupid and inconsistent even within their own design rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sumdumgai Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 Not completely related to the movie, but I went to the Star Trek The Tour today. Very interesting and fun to look at the costumes, props, prosthetics, and ships. The rides and the movie experience kind of sucked. They had a big revolving model of the Enterprise A, had the saucer section of the Enterprise D from generations, a model of a Constellation class starship (like the Stargazer), a model of the USS Excelsior used in Voyager, and a model of a Nebula class starship. It was cool to see a display filled with phasers from all the different series. Definite favs for me are TOS, STIII, and STVI assault phaser. TOS uniforms, uniforms from TMP, TWOK, General Chang's costume from STVI. Got to inspect the bridge of TOS Enterprise and sat in the captain's chair. Bought a TOS type II hand phaser toy from the gift shop, and spent the rest of the afternoon attempting to dematerialize everything. Ah, if only they had some reject costume designs or something from the new movie that was a rejected design so they could at least show something... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fit For Natalie Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 Dudes, dudes, dudes - who cares if it's plausible or not? It's Science Fiction. Anything and everything ever done in scifi is Because It Looks Cool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uminoken Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 So now we have Star Trek to look forward to......IN FRACKING MAY 2009!!! No reason at all given. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.