Star Trek XI - spoilers!

[Ktrek]

I think that Orci is full of it. Building a ship the size of the Enterprise on Earth is logistically impossible. It would be like us building the Space Station here and then trying to get it into space. Small components of the ship could be built here undoubdtedly and then assembled in space, but for the major construction to happen here? It's laughable to say the least! And even if the Enterprise was to be built on Earth San Francisco is the least likely of all places. It's too overcrowded. You would need a more remote and desert like location to launch from. And how do they know that engaging warp drives within an atmosphere would not create unexpected problems? So, thrusters would have to be used and the amount of energy required to get a vessel the size of the Enterprise into space without any problems would be a logistical nightmare. Did Orci or anyone actually consult real space engineers or physicists before making such an absurd decision? And to say that the nacelles could only be balanced in a gravity well is just trying to cover their creative license. The more Orci actually talks about the movie the more worried I am becoming.

Kevin

[Bryancd]

I'm just not too crazy about this whole re-boot, which is beginning to look like. I can't wait to see the movie, but part of me wishes they had just gone someplace new rather than a revision of TOS. TOS wasn't broken, why fix it?

[X]

I think that Orci is full of it. Building a ship the size of the Enterprise on Earth is logistically impossible. It would be like us building the Space Station here and then trying to get it into space. Small components of the ship could be built here undoubdtedly and then assembled in space, but for the major construction to happen here? It's laughable to say the least! And even if the Enterprise was to be built on Earth San Francisco is the least likely of all places. It's too overcrowded. You would need a more remote and desert like location to launch from. And how do they know that engaging warp drives within an atmosphere would not create unexpected problems? So, thrusters would have to be used and the amount of energy required to get a vessel the size of the Enterprise into space without any problems would be a logistical nightmare. Did Orci or anyone actually consult real space engineers or physicists before making such an absurd decision? And to say that the nacelles could only be balanced in a gravity well is just trying to cover their creative license. The more Orci actually talks about the movie the more worried I am becoming.

Kevin

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it is possible to build it on earth and it is probably cheaper because you don't have to bring all of that metal into space. If you factor in anti-gravity generators, it would be MUCH easier to build on earth.

I don't think that they consulted actual scientist because well half of the stuff in the ship ignores science in some aspect.

I think that it's cool that it was built in San Fran ... hell that's what the plaque says it was done. We also don't know how crowded the city is that far in the future. I'm willing to give them the benefits of the doubts because they are trying to do their part to honor the past and push to the future.

[moyer777]

I am just thankful they are doing some more Trek stuff.  I am holding off judgment till I buy my popcorn and sit in the theater.  Then I will let you know what  I think.

People complained about Battlestar Galactica, but it turned out pretty cool.

Most things that are re-imagined can go either way.  We will see.

I want to see the whole package before I say yay or nay.

:ohbaby

[Rico]

I wouldn't sweat the details too much yet.  A long way to go still.  Again, it was expected there would be some changes made.  But like Rick says above, it's really about the whole package.  If a few details are changed a bit but we end up with an exciting and spectacular movie I know I will be very pleased!  :)

[MouseSlayer]

most likeley the under construction steel girder look may be more a commentary on the state of the movie and a small punny than an actual peek at the movie.  . . i hope?

[wraith1701]

most likeley the under construction steel girder look may be more a commentary on the state of the movie and a small punny than an actual peek at the movie.  . . i hope?

Welcome to the Forum, MouseSlayer.  I think the teaser was at least partly symbolic, hence the "under construction" tag line.

Even so; while I would prefer to see the ship constructed in orbit, I'm still willing to accept the ship's components being constructed on earth.  I don't think the physics concerns listed earlier are really an issue- after all, the starfleet shuttlecraft are able to reach escape velocity and travel to and from a planet's surface into space.  Considering the decidedly non-aerodynamic shape of the shuttlecraft, I don't think they rely on thrusters to achieve orbit.  Instead, it seems as though the Federation uses some kind of anti-gravity technology to fly the ships while they are within a planet's atmosphere.

Also, the ships use a structural integrity field to reinforce their frame while zipping through space; whose to say that a similar energy field couldn't be used to keep larger sub-assemblies intact during transit? 

[Bryancd]

I wouldn't sweat the details too much yet.  A long way to go still.  Again, it was expected there would be some changes made.  But like Rick says above, it's really about the whole package.  If a few details are changed a bit but we end up with an exciting and spectacular movie I know I will be very pleased!  :)

I agree with all that, but how about a little gut reaction as an kid who grew up with TOS? Let it loose, brother, let's get a dialogue going on this! They have a great thread going on the RPF and so should we. Should we just accept that a re-imagine of the series is fine just so we have something? Is it just ok to say well at least we get more Star Trek?  Come on people! :)

[X]

Should we just accept that a re-imagine of the series is fine just so we have something? Come on people! :)

Yes.

[Bryancd]

Should we just accept that a re-imagine of the series is fine just so we have something? Come on people! :)

Yes.

Clearly we disagree. I am very much looking forward to this film, I just think it is worthy of debate.

[Geekyfanboy]

If we want Trek to survive and go on to more movies and TV I think this movie has to do well.. so in a matter of speaking we do have to accept it... do we have to like it.. no.

But again we don't have a choice.. this is where they decided to go with Trek. If we are true fans we give them our support.

[Bryancd]

Kenny, it's not that we shouldn't support it to keep the franchise going. Of course we should. It's how do we FEEL about that? This is a community of Star Trek fan's, I have a hard time believing we all just want  to go along to get along within our own community.

[Ktrek]

It seems to me that the Star Wars generation is much more apt to throw away real science for fantasy because the end justifies the means, and as long as we are all "entertained" then what does it matter? Right? The difference between Star Trek and Star Wars was and still is that Star Wars is pure unadulterated fantasy and believable if you accept that. Star Trek is "science fiction" and as such is based upon science fact for it's proposals of a possible future reality. As far as I know Star Trek has always consulted with real scientists for help in predicting the future. I really cannot accept that any NASA scientist would go for the Enterprise being built on Earth.

That said though I will still go see it with great hope and expectation but if they take Star Trek in the direction of Star Wars then they will have lost one fan here and I'm sure many more too. And it's not that I don't love Star Wars because I do but I have always loved Star Trek more and most of that love has been because of the real "possibilities" that Star Trek projects about our future. Think about how many things have already been developed all because of TOS! Once Star Trek diverts into the realm of fantasy you have lost what Roddenberry meant Star Trek to be and it has become something else, NOT STAR TREK! Now that does not mean it cannot be entertaining in it's own right but IMHO the Star Trek name should not be attached to it if it is just going to be a fantasy film with space ships involved.

Kevin

[Ktrek]

Kenny, it's not that we shouldn't support it to keep the franchise going. Of course we should. It's how do we FEEL about that? This is a community of Star Trek fan's, I have a hard time believing we all just want  to go along to get along within our own community.

I agree with you Bryan! What kind of a community do we really have if we are all going to take an attitude of fanboys and not "rock the boat" or go against the status quo? We would be a bunch of clones and yes men just to get along. If the Star Trek future is ever to become reality it can only come about by people willing to discuss things openly with no fear of reprisal or recrimination. To say that "you must not be a fan" of Star Trek just because you may not support what is perceived, at this time, to be a misdirection of the franchise, is absurd! That would be like me saying that you're NOT a fan of musicals because you hate Phantom of the Opera and I love the film!

Kevin

[Rico]

Certainly everyone can have their own views and opinion.  But I will say again, there is very little to go by so far.  A 1 minute and 14 second trailer isn't much.  Let's wait a bit and see how this all turns out.  If you are excited by the trailer - that's great.  If not - that's fine too.  The last thing I will say is most of the people I have known who enjoy "Star Trek" usually are able to accept new concepts and ideas.