Topic: Enterprise from the new Star Trek XI movie Picture

[Beeblebrox]

I don't remember that episode Pestalence but I could of seen it and I don't own all 3 seasons of ToS only TMP on VHS.I still don't have dvd player yet.This might help out Enterprise StarShip Class look at the Depiction.

Beeblebrox to the rescue!  All 78 TOS episodes for your viewing pleasure.


http://www.fancast.com/videos/star%20trek

All the helmets in the space suit locker have "This to the front" markings and arrows on them and the boots all have "L" and "R" on them.

The boots also have "This Side Up" arrows on them.  Oh, and instructions for pouring water out of a boot are printed on the heel.

[Panzergranate]

I tried the site and everything kept coming up with "Unavailable".... bugger!!

There was an instance on the Paddyprise where the artificial gravity shut down but everyone was too drunk to notice!!

The shuttlecraft have a strange resemblance to wheelbarrows....

10 Forward is run by Mrs Doyle (from Father Ted) and not Guinan!!

"Ah, will you be after a nice cup of tea Captain??..... oh go wan, go wan, go wan, go wan...."

[Beeblebrox]

I tried the site and everything kept coming up with "Unavailable".... bugger!!

Really?  Damnation!  Maybe it's something Comcast offers just to its customers. 

"Ah, will you be after a nice cup of tea Captain??..... oh go wan, go wan, go wan, go wan...."

"And what do you say to a nice cup?"

"FICK OFF, COP!!"

[Vipre]

I tried the site and everything kept coming up with "Unavailable".... bugger!!

Really?  Damnation!  Maybe it's something Comcast offers just to its customers.

I have Embarq DSL and I was able to watch the videos.

[marstone]

The shows fired up no problem for me.  Cable modem over wireless.

[Panzergranate]

I have all my favourite episodes of TOS video anyway.

They've been seen on TV so many times, for the past 40 years that I'm probally more word perfect with the script then the cast was during filming back then!!

Kirk never says, "Beam me up, Scotty!!"

Scotty never actually say, "I canna change the laws of physics!!" but actually, "I cannot change the laws of physics.... it'll take an hour t restart the engines!!"

Nobody is seen to use a toilet despite several situations where you'd expect a queue to form outside the corridor.

And howcome, even in TNG, nobody ever catches an alien virus that causes diaroiea, eh??!!

Aw, come on, someone eats an alien food stuff and only has a headache or coma??!!

[Beeblebrox]

Nobody is seen to use a toilet despite several situations where you'd expect a queue to form outside the corridor.

And howcome, even in TNG, nobody ever catches an alien virus that causes diaroiea, eh??!!

Aw, come on, someone eats an alien food stuff and only has a headache or coma??!!

You must not have been paying attention for the last 40 years or so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQcfz4gATWE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-QnvoOd3WQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ve4PRaA5y48

[Panzergranate]

Hmm, you may have a point there.... farts and Klingons do sometimes seem to occur together, especially with those wet, shrapnelly farts....

I wonder if Star Fleet has considered filling a torpedo case with compressed fart gas and calling it a "Farton Torpedo"!!

[Beeblebrox]

Hmm, you may have a point there.... farts and Klingons do sometimes seem to occur together, especially with those wet, shrapnelly farts....

Only the TNG Klingons have that problem and I put it down to all the prune juice.  Real, TOS, Klingons drank liquor distilled from butterflies.

[knightstorm]

Sorry for dragging this thread out again, but I just saw the trailer on the cloverfield DVD, and got really ticked off again.  Look at how these @#$holes defend their decision to show the Enterprise being built planetside.

http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/19/interview-orci-answers-questions-about-new-trek-trailer/

why would they build it in space?  Maybe because its more energy efficient to build something that large in a zero g environment.  Maybe because they don't want to be installing matter/antimatter reactors on the surface of a populated planet.  Also that whole garbage about only frail things being built in space is idiotic.  The only thing we've built in space so far is the ISS, and its appearance is largely based on the fact that its the best we can produce with existing infrastructure.  This would not be the case 300 years from now.  Also, how is earth's gravity necessary to "calibrate everything."  I have to assume that by the time they have instruments that need calibrating the artificial gravity will already be online.  Finally, why the (*&^ is earth's gravity needed to "balance the warp nacelles."  1, the ship is probably designed on computer and all the necessary calculations would already be made, and the instrumentation would be accurate enough in the 23rd century to be able to handle it.  Second since the ship is not going to operate in earth's gravity how is that relevant to the placement of the warp nacelles?  The truth is that the new film is being made by a bunch of %^*$ who have never seen an episode of Star Trek.  And before anyone says this is a supposed to be a re-imagining its not.  They issued statements saying that it wouldn't be.

Also, I got a closer look at the nacelles.  Tailfins?

[Lieutenant_Q]

I have to think that the teaser trailer is just to throw us.

It is impossible to buy his explanation that a gravitational field is neccessary to balance Warp Nacelles.  First off, even if it were the case, a terrestrial gravitational field is the worst possible place to do it.  The Nacelles would have to be constructed at the exact same place, oriented the exact same way because a terrestrial gravitational field is not uniform.  You move even a meter, and due to the density of the ground and its composition beneath you, the gravitational field changes.  Even if the change is only a slight deviation, its enough to throw the delicate balance of a Warp Nacelle tandem out of whack.

But the more I read about ST: XI the more I don't like it.  And we can lay the thanks for this squarely on the shoulders of those who thought the New "BattleStar:Galactica" was a valid "re-image".

[Vipre]

And we can lay the thanks for this squarely on the shoulders of those who thought the New "BattleStar:Galactica" was a valid "re-image".

I don't know, I'd put it more on the shoulders of those who are incapable of separating the series in their minds. The ones who watch TOS-R and can't help themselves but rewrite the history of Trek "canon" rather than just enjoy it as a separate entity. The makers of the movie seem to have done their best to keep "Star Trek" and previous Trek works separate, going as far as intentionally choosing to not add "XI" to the title but "fans" just won't let it go and keep shoving the movie together with everything else.

[knightstorm]

I have to think that the teaser trailer is just to throw us.

I don't think he would have given that sort of interview if that was the case.

And we can lay the thanks for this squarely on the shoulders of those who thought the New "BattleStar:Galactica" was a valid "re-image".

In defense of BSG, they made the decision to re-imagine very early in development, and never led us to believe it would be anything other than that.  In this case, we were specifically told that it would not be a re-imagining, and would be respectful to the cannon, and then they show us this.

[knightstorm]

And we can lay the thanks for this squarely on the shoulders of those who thought the New "BattleStar:Galactica" was a valid "re-image".

I don't know, I'd put it more on the shoulders of those who are incapable of separating the series in their minds. The ones who watch TOS-R and can't help themselves but rewrite the history of Trek "canon" rather than just enjoy it as a separate entity. The makers of the movie seem to have done their best to keep "Star Trek" and previous Trek works separate, going as far as intentionally choosing to not add "XI" to the title but "fans" just won't let it go and keep shoving the movie together with everything else.

They stated that this film was a prequel and thus in the cannon.  Also, no Trek film has had a number in the official name since Star Trek VI.  They specifically promised to treat the established "cannon" with respect.  This monstrosity of a trailer is evidence that they llied.  Then this )(*& has the nerve to shovel this steaming pile of (*^% in front of me to justify it.

[Panzergranate]

Didn't the maker's plate on the bridge of the TOS Enterprise say that it was built in San Fransico shipyards??

Fandom always had it built in sections and assembled in space orbit.

However, even in TOS the Enterprise was demostrated to be capable of atmospheric flight when it travelled back in time to 1969 and was intercepted by a USAAF Starfighter jet.

As for the gravitational field nachelle thing, it might be a plot device to later explain why the weird looking nacelles being used on the Movie Enterprise are abandoned by the TOS era. Perhaps these engines are prototypes and the writers need a valid excuse to keep continuity between the appearenceof the TOS-R Enterprise and the TOS Enterprise.

[Vipre]

The interview explained it very well...

That comes from our creative license. No one can tell me that it is not possible that in order to create properly balanced warp nacelles they have to be constructed in a gravity well.

Respect for "canon" and adhering to what someone is convinced is the only true "canon" are two different things. No one can say how the Enterprise was built or what it originally looked like when launched because it's never been shown before so it's ridiculous to go around saying "They're doing it all wrong!"

Now if they do the building of the Enterprise D and show it on land then they are doing it wrong because it was shown being built in orbit of Mars.

[Panzergranate]

The only canon "fact" is that the Enterprise was built in San Fransico, according to the maker's plate.

The writer's have to carefully slot TOS-R into the Star Trek timeline and avoid the lashup that was done in ENT.

[knightstorm]

Didn't the maker's plate on the bridge of the TOS Enterprise say that it was built in San Fransico shipyards??

Fandom always had it built in sections and assembled in space orbit.

However, even in TOS the Enterprise was demostrated to be capable of atmospheric flight when it travelled back in time to 1969 and was intercepted by a USAAF Starfighter jet.

As for the gravitational field nachelle thing, it might be a plot device to later explain why the weird looking nacelles being used on the Movie Enterprise are abandoned by the TOS era. Perhaps these engines are prototypes and the writers need a valid excuse to keep continuity between the appearenceof the TOS-R Enterprise and the TOS Enterprise.

San Francisco Fleet Yards could mean its in geosychronis orbit over San Francisco.  Also, every depiction of every Enterprise from NX-01 to NCC-1701D has the ship being built in an orbital drydock.  Also, One episode of TNG, Homecoming I think features the Enterprise docking at McKinley fleetyards.  Also while the ship has entered the atmosphere at times, it hasn't stayed there.  Based on the shape of the Enterprise ie. Long pylons with Saucers and Nacells attached, it would probably require antigravs to remain stable during its long assembly period.  It would be far easier to just assemble the ship in a zero g environment.

The interview explained it very well...

That comes from our creative license. No one can tell me that it is not possible that in order to create properly balanced warp nacelles they have to be constructed in a gravity well.

Respect for "canon" and adhering to what someone is convinced is the only true "canon" are two different things. No one can say how the Enterprise was built or what it originally looked like when launched because it's never been shown before so it's ridiculous to go around saying "They're doing it all wrong!"

Now if they do the building of the Enterprise D and show it on land then they are doing it wrong because it was shown being built in orbit of Mars.

This is not what someone thinks is the cannon, this is the cannon.  When an orbital drydock is described as a federation fleetyard, then that strongly implies that these ships are built in orbit.  When federation starships are depicted as being launched from and undergoing major overhauls in orbital drydocks it also demonstrates that these ships are built in space.

[Vipre]

This is not what someone thinks is the cannon, this is the cannon.  When an orbital drydock is described as a federation fleetyard, then that strongly implies that these ships are built in orbit.  When federation starships are depicted as being launched from and undergoing major overhauls in orbital drydocks it also demonstrates that these ships are built in space.

Which still does nothing to contradict the E being built on Earth. Examples; Enterprise D: Built in Orbit of Mars (shown in at least one episode), 1701: building never shown (refit done in spacedock), C: Never Shown, B: Never shown, A: never shown. "Implied" to be "canon" is not the same as "canon" no matter how hard you pretend.

Building it on the surface doesn't "contradict" canon because there is no canon on it to contradict.

[knightstorm]

This is not what someone thinks is the cannon, this is the cannon.  When an orbital drydock is described as a federation fleetyard, then that strongly implies that these ships are built in orbit.  When federation starships are depicted as being launched from and undergoing major overhauls in orbital drydocks it also demonstrates that these ships are built in space.

Which still does nothing to contradict the E being built on Earth. Examples; Enterprise D: Built in Orbit of Mars (shown in at least one episode), 1701: building never shown (refit done in spacedock), C: Never Shown, B: Never shown, A: never shown. "Strongly implied" to be canon is not the same as "canon" no matter how hard you pretend.

Considering the scale of the TMP refit, if the ships were initially built planetside they would have landed it common sense.
If ships were built planetside, landing would be a routine manuver- Star Trek voyager states its not
also the B was built in space, if it was built on land, they would not have had to launch the champagne bottle at it in Generations.  I don't have to pretend anything.  the facts speak for themselves, unfortunately the makers of the current movie didn't bother to listen.  And then they had to be incredible *&%^&*bags about it.  Also, if you want to insult me again, send me your name and address.  It is easy for people like you to be brave by insulting people on an anonymous forum, but if you are going to do this, at least be ready to say it to my face.