The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > Certain views are okay...
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 01-25-2013, 01:20 AM
martok2112's Avatar
martok2112 martok2112 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: River Ridge, LA
Posts: 6,480
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin View Post
I get the idea of the ship being the silent additional character............but Star Trek isn't about the ship as such. It's the people ON that ship.

The ship becomes a part of the show in the same way that Galactica does in BSG, or the Falcon does. But it's not the series as a whole. It's important it works as a setting of course.
Exactly. Star Trek/Star Wars/Battlestar Galactica....any sci-fi/space fantasy worth its salt is not about the ships/technology/wow factor stuff...it's definitely about the characters, the people involved. But it is a nice little side effect that the ships eventually get regarded by fans, and even by the writers, as sort of a character unto themselves.

They may be silent characters, but when their guns fire up, or their warp engines/hyperdrives/FTL's kick in, those silent characters speak volumes.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-25-2013, 01:40 AM
Captain Tom Coughlin's Avatar
Captain Tom Coughlin Captain Tom Coughlin is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USS Meadowlands
Posts: 10,989
Default

Sometimes they are an extension of the human characters. The Falcon is an extension of Solo. A scruffy ship for a scruffy smuggler .
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-25-2013, 04:12 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

The Falcon andthe Galactica have an existentialistic, survivalist touch which the Enterprise doesn't (and VOY is rightly criticized for feeling like the Enterprise when it should feel like the Galactica). When the ships go down in TSFS and GEN it is not a matter of life and death, the crew survives without the support of their vessel .
Solo is out of business and thus nothing without his ship and in BSG humankind direly needs their one capital ship. If Picard loses a ship he simply gets another one (well, after some ten year or so captain hiatus).

I think that's why the former two are as Tom described more like characters whereas the Enterprise is as Kevin described more like a mere background.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-25-2013, 05:08 AM
martok2112's Avatar
martok2112 martok2112 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: River Ridge, LA
Posts: 6,480
Default

Good points, Horatio. Indeed, some stuff I'd not exactly considered.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-25-2013, 06:39 AM
starbase63's Avatar
starbase63 starbase63 is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 1,727
Cool

What bugs me most about the design is that the primary was taken very liberally from the Connie upgrade version from the TOS movies, but the secondary has that flowy "organic" styling that Church seemed so pleased about, to me the two don't mix when put next to each other.

Plus the smaller secondary hull makes the ship look front/top heavy, like the Galaxy class.

And the nacelles on steroids? Bah.

__________________
Never keep a Vulcan waiting...
Admin, sb63's Star Trek Logs, member of the Trek Webmaster Program
STL is now also on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/StarTrekLogs
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-26-2013, 11:04 PM
Quark's Avatar
Quark Quark is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Santa Monica, California
Posts: 2,653
Default

I just have a problem with this ship. Just because it's the current ship doesn't mean that we have to like it. I remember when I first saw the ship, it looked awesome but upon closer inspection, it just was flaw after flaw after flaw. The ship just seems to go against the law of physics. How on Earth could those stubby and flabby pylons support those huge falic bagle dog-looking warp nacelles? I prefer the ship used in Galaxy Quest than this version of the Enterprise.
__________________
*The word "dabo" means "I will give" in Latin, and "Gold" in Aramaic.

J.J. "Binks" Abrams is taking over sci-fi!
Fans Expendable
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-26-2013, 11:58 PM
omegaman's Avatar
omegaman omegaman is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Penrith NSW Australia
Posts: 4,609
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark View Post
I just have a problem with this ship. Just because it's the current ship doesn't mean that we have to like it. I remember when I first saw the ship, it looked awesome but upon closer inspection, it just was flaw after flaw after flaw. The ship just seems to go against the law of physics. How on Earth could those stubby and flabby pylons support those huge falic bagle dog-looking warp nacelles? I prefer the ship used in Galaxy Quest than this version of the Enterprise.
No question that they do. One could also say the same for the original Enterprise… and the same applies to the saucer and the sail connecting it to the secondary hull (on the old and the new)… especially if you think in aerodynamic terms which are totally irrelevant in space.
__________________
TREK IS TREK. WHATEVER THE TIMELINE!

The next TV Series should be called STARFLEET!
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-27-2013, 12:33 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,077
Default

At the end of the day it's called fiction. We know in Trek you have construction materials and methods that are supposed to be very different to ours. They are not building these ships out of materials that we would be limited to in the present day.

If this society can create magic forcefields that prevent them all being squished like bugs when the ship hits Warp Velocities, if they can disassemble a human body at the molecular level move it thousands of kilometers and reassemble it intact and can also warp space itself..................they can probably technologically figure out how to balance a Nacelle on a pylon.

Nothwithstanding if Warp Nacelles operate on the manner in which we saw the D's Warp Nacelle in the 24th Century then they may be fairly hollow and despite their size not necessarily the 'heaviest' part of the ship. That's IF all nacelles are essentially hollow tubes. They of course may not be.
__________________
'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 : 01-27-2013 at 06:20 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-27-2013, 12:48 AM
Quark's Avatar
Quark Quark is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Santa Monica, California
Posts: 2,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by omegaman View Post
No question that they do. One could also say the same for the original Enterprise… and the same applies to the saucer and the sail connecting it to the secondary hull (on the old and the new)… especially if you think in aerodynamic terms which are totally irrelevant in space.
I would still like to know how the Enterprise was put into space. Was it launched like the Phoenix? Or was it simply beamed there?



__________________
*The word "dabo" means "I will give" in Latin, and "Gold" in Aramaic.

J.J. "Binks" Abrams is taking over sci-fi!
Fans Expendable
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-27-2013, 12:55 AM
Captain Tom Coughlin's Avatar
Captain Tom Coughlin Captain Tom Coughlin is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USS Meadowlands
Posts: 10,989
Default

These are no less spindly

__________________

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 Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:29 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.