The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > General Star Trek Discussions > Films > Movies (I - X) > Enterprise-A Main Engineering
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 09-04-2010, 05:59 PM
samwiseb samwiseb is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,207
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roysten View Post
The bridge changes every time between IV and VI as well, the changes aren't subtle but show vastly different bridges in every case, can justify the differences between 5 and 6 by saying a different bridge module is installed.
Aren't the turbolift doors wider apart though in VI compared to V? I mean there's probably no way to get a positive confirmation visually... but if so they would've had to go deck-by-deck to rip out the turbolift shafts and put them back in.

(Whatever. I just accept it as a director's reinterpretation of what ST 'should' look like, and leave it at that. If Herman Zimmerman was fine with the discontinuity, so am I.)

I also love it that Starfleet wants to retire the Enterprise at the end of VI. Even according to the most liberal interpretation of the official timeline, it's only been about ten years, at most, since she was christened at the end of IV.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-05-2010, 12:49 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,077
Default

The 'retirement' makes little sense technically either, for the reason that you mentioned, but again that would be likely a case of doing it more for the emotional impact of it being their collective story ending.

I suppose it would have been less impactful to have them say the crew was being decomissioned but not the ship.

At the time fans could have maybe rationalised (given there's so much that kinda is open to rationalisations) that just the crew was being stood down, and the ship would have been re-crewed and sent out with a new command crew but then Generations blew that out the water by having a totally new ship! Never mind though.

Regarding the corridors, again, none of this stuff makes a lot of sense if you stop and think about it - a Connie has in TFF identical corridors to the 'state of the art' Galaxy 90 years later, but then in the next film they are different, along with the bridge - so, yeah, each director just did a ship revamp to suit themselves.

As it turns out, Abrams did the same thing!
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-05-2010, 04:19 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

The retirement of the NCC-1701-A makes a lot of sense, her fate is the same as the fate of her crew.
Of course you can be nitpicky and question why a young ship like the A and a young guy like Chekov should retire alongside an old guy like McCoy, but then you'd entirely miss the point of the story.

I don't get the design continuity obsession, I must have watched TUC more than five times and I never ever saw even the engineering room shot. I couldn't care less about whether the sets in movie L match those in movie K.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-05-2010, 04:59 AM
Roysten's Avatar
Roysten Roysten is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Yorkshire, England
Posts: 918
Default

I don't take it as the entire crew retiring, but rather with the retiring of the the crew as a collective with the younger ones like Chekov going on to do other things. As for the ship, it was a refitted Connie like the original Enterprise so you can assume that it's probably about 40 years old anyway and with Constitution class ships being decommissioned completely by the end of the century, it's not a big leap that they retired the ship, especially as Excelsiors are far superior it doesn't make sense to have an older ship as the flagship.

{quote]Aren't the turbolift doors wider apart though in VI compared to V? I mean there's probably no way to get a positive confirmation visually... but if so they would've had to go deck-by-deck to rip out the turbolift shafts and put them back in.[/quote]

Yeah the turbolifts definitely move in each film there, which would be equivalent to changing the shafts of an entire 23 storey building, can be ignored or explained away and doesn't really mean anything in practice.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-05-2010, 06:23 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,077
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
The retirement of the NCC-1701-A makes a lot of sense, her fate is the same as the fate of her crew.

Of course you can be nitpicky and question why a young ship like the A and a young guy like Chekov should retire alongside an old guy like McCoy, but then you'd entirely miss the point of the story.
Well actually it doesn't really, if the ship is so young. Of course, that's an 'if'. Since I don't think it was ever explicitly made clear if the ship was an existing Connie renamed or a new build starship. TFF implied the latter what with all the system problems they were having. But that could have been something to do with the clear umpteenth refit that the ship had had inbetween.

That aside there's no missing the point of the 'retiral' either as it's indeed quite clear when watching the film what the point is. Like some other directors Meyer wanted you to 'feel' something at the end and so he simply made it that way.

Making sense wasn't really the point. I think we can all accept that. It was about going with the emotion and the feeling and the 'final adventure' etc

But as we've all discovered a thousand times over, once you've watched the film enough then one does turn their attention to these little matters and Meyer as much as anyone had moments that don't really make sense once you've digested the main point. I can watch FC a hundred times...........but the Borg going back in time still remains complete codswallop. But that's not the point of that film either. Just a manipulation to make it all work.

It's not a dig at anyone who made TUC, just a fact of the films.

Quote:
I don't get the design continuity obsession, I must have watched TUC more than five times and I never ever saw even the engineering room shot. I couldn't care less about whether the sets in movie L match those in movie K.
I don't believe anyone ever said that they lost sleep or anything over it (apparently at least until Abrams did it and then it's unforgiveable for some inexplicable reason) but as above, after 19 odd years these things get noticed and discussed.

One can hardly take exception to having it done with TUC when it's been done with all the others as well.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist

Last edited by kevin : 09-05-2010 at 06:30 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-05-2010, 06:31 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

Sorry, but such a critique is as stupid to me as b*tching about the Enterprise being built in Iowa. Kirk sees this ship, he dreams about commanding it one day and this partly motivates him to finish the Academy quickly.
If there is a dramatic reason for a scene which might seem awkward from a continuity point of perspective this very scene is perfectly justified in my opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-05-2010, 06:37 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,077
Default

Well exactly - that's what I said.

It has a dramatic point (like many points in many of the Trek films) but if you scratch a little deeper it may not make a lot of sense (also like many a moment of the Trek films). So, as long as you don't ask any questions about it, it works perfectly well in the moment of the film.

But really, Horatio, you know fine well fans do eventually scratch a little deeper and ask 'wait a minute.............' and these kinds of little discussions are ten a penny. There's nothing wrong with having them when it suits.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-05-2010, 06:44 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,077
Default

And then I like to say until we see more Romulans that doesn't automatically mean anything at this early stage!!!
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-06-2010, 12:32 AM
samwiseb samwiseb is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,207
Default

And if it later turns out they did change the Romulans at large, so what? They changed the Klingons big time in STVI. And we actually got 'cool' Klingons for once. (Though I guess they were cool for a while on TNG too. Until about Season 5 or so)
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:21 AM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.