The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > I come as an Emissary to canonistas and revisionists...
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 12-04-2008, 12:59 AM
williamLX's Avatar
williamLX williamLX is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 312
Default

Kukalaka has a point, the TMP Enterprise is just too different to be a refit of the TOS ship. Sure many major warships have undergone rebuilds, but nothing that has changed every singe detail. Ususally the hull remians more or less unchanged for example. Npthing on the TMP ship matches the original. As for the idea that some of the frame remains, again the changes are so big that is unlikely, but even so it would be cheaper to build from scratch than to do such a major rebuild.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 12-04-2008, 01:21 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 Saquist View Post
Negative Kevin.
While tech babble can be cover for lack of dialogue to support the plot it is not a cover for not having a real plot. That doesn't make sense. Technobabble has nothing to do with plot it's exclusively about dialogue and it's not a bad thing...ususally. It can be over used though
Yep, that's my basic point - understanding it isn't the issue, but some episodes are like watching a live technical manual.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 12-04-2008, 02:08 AM
The Saint's Avatar
The Saint The Saint is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,575
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JSnyder4
Claiming it isn't representative of adhering to the past is absurd.
No, it isn't. It's a valid observation. Are you saying that Church's design does represent the Star Trek of the '60s?

Quote:
That's like claiming all Flash Gordon images must conform to the '30's presentation on the basis that it's a "period piece" (hello, Trek is in the future).
No, that would be an entirely different claim. Yes, Trek is in the future. That's what makes it a period piece. (Hint: a piece of fiction set in any period other than the present is a period piece. Perhaps you'd like to argue now that the future is not a period other than the present.)
__________________
"Now I did a job -- and got nothin' but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character, so let me make this abundantly clear: I do the job... and then I get paid. Go run your little world."
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 12-04-2008, 03:35 AM
LTJG Iferal's Avatar
LTJG Iferal LTJG Iferal is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 265
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
It is sometimes difficult to figure out what view you're looking at of the Lunar Ascent Module but this is a Port / Starboard view....not a front fiew or rear where you would see both Aerozine Fuel Pods of the craft. One is larger than the other. The Ascent Module doesn't need to be fully balanced because it has only one use. That use it to get the crew into orbit of the moon. It was never meant to travel a path or course through space but merely to achieve orbital velocity.

As a result when the Ascent module was used as a life pod during the Apollo 13 desaster they pilot needed to get both ships in the right position for Earth Return the path had to be compensated for.
Why did the return path have to be compensated for in the case of Apollo 13? Because a proper approach angle was required for reentry, and the ship did not start its trip back to Earth in the typical way (which would have put it on the proper course from the outset). The LEM in all its not-fully-balanced, asymmetrical glory was just hanging off the end of the CSM all the way from the Earth to the moon at the beginning of the mission without trouble. It didn't require constant MAJOR course corrections because it didn't have to "reenter" the lunar atmosphere at a precise angle, it just had to enter orbit. Like a starship.

Pray, tell me how JJ's Enterprise is any more "unbalanced" than, say, the 1701-A or -D?
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 12-04-2008, 04:45 AM
I-Am-Zim I-Am-Zim is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North Carolina, USA, Earth
Posts: 3,432
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by williamLX View Post
Kukalaka has a point, the TMP Enterprise is just too different to be a refit of the TOS ship. Sure many major warships have undergone rebuilds, but nothing that has changed every singe detail. Ususally the hull remians more or less unchanged for example. Npthing on the TMP ship matches the original. As for the idea that some of the frame remains, again the changes are so big that is unlikely, but even so it would be cheaper to build from scratch than to do such a major rebuild.
In TMP, Scotty did tell Kirk that they had spent 18 months "redesigning" and "refitting" the Enterprise. So there was a total redesign of the original shape. Even though the TMP ship is way more detailed and looks like a completely different ship, it still retains the basic overall shape and proportions of the original Jeffries design.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LTJG Iferal View Post
Pray, tell me how JJ's Enterprise is any more "unbalanced" than, say, the 1701-A or -D?
"Unbalanced" may not be an appropriate description since weight has little effect in a micro-gravity environment. The Abrahmsprise is "out of proportion". If you compare the original Jeffries design to the Church design, the proportions are all out of whack. The saucer on the Church version is HUGE while the secondary hull is tiny by comparison. The deflector dish is positioned way too far forward and looks wierd. The nacelles are also strangely bulbous at the front and tapered to almost a point at the rear, while the Jeffries nacelles were cylinders with a slight taper to the rear. The nacelle pylons are also positioned too far toward the rear of the secondary hull on the Church version. On the Church version, the secondary hull appears to taper to almost a point at the very rear between the nacelle pylons. This would appear to negate the possibility of a shuttlebay. The Jeffries version had plenty of room in the secondary hull for a shuttle bay that hold several shuttles. I have not seen a view of the saucer section from the rear on the Church version. It would be interesting to see where the shuttlebay is located on this new ship. What if it is on the top of the saucer a-la Enterprise-D? That would be a total deviation from the original design which this new ship is supposed to emulate. That is pure speculation on my part, though. What I am saying is that the Abrahmsprise is a total departure from the original design and looks nothing like the original Constitution Class Enterprise that it is supposed to represent.

Last edited by I-Am-Zim : 12-04-2008 at 04:50 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 12-04-2008, 04:56 AM
mmoore's Avatar
mmoore mmoore is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: OKUSA
Posts: 1,973
Default

I don't think anyone expected the "refit" to be picked apart millimeter by millimeter. It's a movie, for crying out loud.
__________________
"Are you out of your Vulcan mind?"
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 12-04-2008, 05:10 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,077
Default

Respectfully, I have to disagree with that. It was always going to be picked through to the tiniest detail possible so that faults and flaws could be found. Even if the Enterprise was literally not one bit different there would still have been something someone found to use to bash Abrams over the head with.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 12-04-2008, 05:14 AM
I-Am-Zim I-Am-Zim is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North Carolina, USA, Earth
Posts: 3,432
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin View Post
Respectfully, I have to disagree with that. It was always going to be picked through to the tiniest detail possible so that faults and flaws could be found. Even if the Enterprise was literally not one bit different there would still have been something someone found to use to bash Abrams over the head with.
If Abrahms and his crew had designed an Enterprise that looked like the Enterprise, there would be no need for bashing.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 12-04-2008, 05:15 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

The funny thing is that the entire refit story of TMP makes no sense. It is a new ship, it looks like a new ship, but to give it the 'old yet new' touch that lines about her having being refitted have been written.
Most interestingly everyone buys that yet unleashed havoc upon JJA et al.
It is the story (not the ship), stupid.

By the way, here is a nice picture someone posted which shows that the changes are minor ones, it is only the new texture which makes the ship look so different:
http://www.startrekmovie.com/forums/...ead.php?t=4572
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 12-04-2008, 05:25 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 I-Am-Zim View Post
If Abrahms and his crew had designed an Enterprise that looked like the Enterprise, there would be no need for bashing.
I believe something else would have gotten the bashers attention instead.
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 07:21 PM.


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.