Jump to content

Home

Star Trek (Pic Heavy)


HerbieZ
 Share

Recommended Posts

This grab Ive taken from the trailer shows Enterprise taking off from spacedock - whether that is Mars spacedock ? I dunno > the planet below doesnt look like mars, so maybe (in the film), the Enterprise is being built on earth after all :) =More canon rape :Dspacedock.jpg

 

According to two episodes - 'Tomorrow is Yesterday' (the time travel one with the fighter pilot) and 'Is There in Truth no Beauty?' the Enterprise was built at San Francisco.

 

I'll have to check out the episodes, but I can't find the DVDs at the moment.

 

I personally think thats a decent outlook for a director in this situation to have. If you set out to please every trek fan from the last 40 years, youd be in whole bunch o' hurt :p

 

That's what I've been saying all along :). But unfortunately, quite a few Trek fans only care about what they want. Sad really, when Star Trek is a show about new frontiers, new ideas and understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 206
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

According to two episodes - 'Tomorrow is Yesterday' (the time travel one with the fighter pilot) and 'Is There in Truth no Beauty?' the Enterprise was built at San Francisco.

 

From here at Memory Beta ; I think this answers it all..and maybe raises a couple of other questions about canon conundrums

 

Construction and shakedown

 

The Enterprise was the second Constitution class vessel to be authorized and construction began at Starfleet Division, San Francisco Fleet Yards, Earth on July 16th 2242. Overseeing the construction was Captain Robert April, after being appointed by Commodore van Anling, who worked closely with naval architect Lawrence Marvick, chief construction engineer Franz Joseph IV, and their team, which included Bernice Hart and Montgomery Scott. When construction began, the Enterprise had not yet been named, with the intention that the ship would be named upon completion. (TAS novelization: The Counter-Clock Incident; TOS novels: Best Destiny, Final Frontier, Vulcan's Glory)

 

In the EV comic: "Flesh of My Flesh", April states that he took command of the ship shortly after the completion of construction at the Utopia Plantia Yards.

 

Construction of the Enterprise was completed by early 2245, and the Enterprise was officially launched on July 4th 2245 by Federation President Samuel Solomon Qasr, and attended by former President Jonathan Archer, who had been the commander of the United Earth ship Enterprise (NX-01) nearly a century earlier.

 

Following the launch ceremony, the Enterprise began shakedown cruises under the command of Captain April. The shakedown cruises went well and the Enterprise was finally commissioned on January 3rd 2246 and began its first five-year mission of exploration. (TAS novelization: The Counter-Clock Incident; ENT episode: "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II")

 

IIRC there's a bit of continuity fuzziness between what and where Capt April and Pike do. Im not sure if Capt April is in the movie, Pike is commanding the Enterprise though(played by Bruce Greenwood) ;)

 

It would be really cool to see Scott Bakula do a cameo in the movie and be present at the launch ;) [/iMO]

 

A writer at UGO got a sneak peak at 20 mins of the movie - the article contains MAJOR SPOILERS ... clean summary: despite some canon violations which some Trekkies will want to kill Abrams for, the reaction was overall positive - especially in terms of great action sequences, and that Scotty and Bones are done very well ;)

 

mtfbwya

Edited by Astrotoy7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

lolz. Lynk. Rearranging the sentence will not bring us any closer to finding a reference to confirm what you heard :p

 

*continues hunt for galaxy class ship, and OJ's Real Killers*

 

edit: Memory Alpha contains no such description in their Galaxy Class entry. Hopefully your source may be able to confirm the reference. Either that, or we shall simply conclude they have a fertile imagination ;)

 

mtfbwya

Edited by Astrotoy7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seriously doubt the whole build on the ground theory... the tech required to lift off something as heavy and fragile as a trek ship is astounding, I always assumed small sections were assembled on planet and shipped to space where a "space dock" assembled it. Like a huge Lego kit! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seriously doubt the whole build on the ground theory...

 

How serious is that doubt RedHawke :p You doubt the ability to lift and transport massive objects(or the ship to do so itself) ... in a society that has mastered faster than light travel and matter transport, you'd think "lifting big stuff" would be less of a challenge ;)

 

For hardcore fans, Abrams is sticking true to the way it has been established by Roddenberry in the 1986 book, you gotta give him that :p

 

mtfbwya

Edited by Astrotoy7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

that might acually work! PS, Picards enterprise had the ability to take off and land. there was an episode where Frengi took over the enterprise, and landed to let everyone off on a planet.

 

Are you sure of that? Galaxy-class ships are not meant for suborbital flight and the saucer section alone could only make emergency landings, but not to land and takeoff again. There are not even any landing struts to land. The Defiant never landed in an episode, but it had landing struts. It was not intended to take off and land like a shuttle, but it could.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yea, I'm very sure. I think the episode is called "Rascals". Where the ferengi fire on the enterprise, and then seize control of it. I remember because, at the time, the cg for the enterprise taking off and landing was incredible. Also Reiker did that, completely unnecessary, dive when he locked the bridge commands.

 

If you remember, the captain, the bar tender (woopy goldberg), and the bajorin all get turned into kids. Those kids take back the enterprise from the ferengi (with the help of Reiker). It was a two parter, if I recall correctly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yea, I'm very sure. I think the episode is called "Rascals". Where the ferengi fire on the enterprise, and then seize control of it. I remember because, at the time, the cg for the enterprise taking off and landing was incredible. Also Reiker did that, completely unnecessary, dive when he locked the bridge commands.

 

If you remember, the captain, the bar tender (woopy goldberg), and the bajorin all get turned into kids. Those kids take back the enterprise from the ferengi (with the help of Reiker). It was a two parter, if I recall correctly.

 

The Enterprise D never landed. Specially in that episode, it was not a two parter either. I think you are getting confused with the 37's from voyager.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How serious is that doubt RedHawke :p

Quite serious... we are talking the ToS here... not TNG. :xp:

 

You doubt the ability to lift and transport massive objects(or the ship to do so itself) ... in a society that has mastered faster than light travel and matter transport, you'd think "lifting big stuff" would be less of a challenge ;)

The Movies and TNG eras has shown us ships that are clearly capable of some sort of semi-gravetic propulsion (The Klingon BOP, Voyager). But that is a couple generations removed from the ToS era. This is also re-enforced by the ToS itself as the Enterprise needed to use its warp/impulse drives to stop a decaying orbit, when they would have simply used their AG drive to stabilize the orbit instead... if they had one... cause they didn't.

 

Also they have hardly "mastered" Warp Travel or the Transporter in ToS... as the very episodes and the issues they faced in them partially because of these devices would seem to indicate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite serious... we are talking the ToS here... not TNG. :xp: words....

 

AG drive? Why make references to things in Trek without quoting references or specific episodes or quotes. There isnt a less fruitful passtime than than theorising about a fictional property ;) Apart from saying "someone told me..." of course :p

 

longstoryshort: In the 1986 book "The Making Of Star Trek" which was co-written by Gene - it says the Enterprise was built on the ground ;) Thats really the end of the topic right there. Its Gene's to mess with, just like George with the SW universe ;) Just because it is based on ''earths future'' doesnt mean its obligated to be scientfically accurate.

 

mtfbwya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AG drive? Why make references to things in Trek without quoting references or specific episodes or quotes. There isnt a less fruitful passtime than than theorising about a fictional property ;) Apart from saying "someone told me..." of course :p

Stop being an ass, Astro. A friend and I were talking about the new Trek movie and he was telling how they didn't build any of their larger ships on a planets surface. I said "what about the Galaxy class on the surface of Mars" and he said something about it being a training facility.

 

Now, if I really did care and got picky about it, I would've asked him for specific references and a 10 page write up including footnotes so I can find the references he's citing and confirm them on my own... but honestly, I just took his word for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't understand why the franchise would condemn itself to re-creating its weakest series, with the shallowest characters that had little to no dynamics. Just because it's the original doesn't mean it deserves some special treatment. I think some people go soft on it because "without it, we wouldn't have the following installments". I don't care. TOS was horrendous, which is not entirely its fault, as it was made in the '70s and '80s, when taste and depth in a storyline was nearly unheard of. I think it's total suicide, however, to pour a good bit of the franchise's popularity into this remake of TOS that not even TOS fans are too thrilled about.

 

Also, what in the blazes are Harold and Shawn of the Dead doing on the cast? Are they actively trying to make this a comedy now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stop being an ass, Astro. A friend and I were talking about the new Trek movie and he was telling how they didn't build any of their larger ships on a planets surface. I said "what about the Galaxy class on the surface of Mars" and he said something about it being a training facility.

 

Now, if I really did care and got picky about it, I would've asked him for specific references and a 10 page write up including footnotes so I can find the references he's citing and confirm them on my own... but honestly, I just took his word for it.

 

I would have asked for the write up. There is nothing to indicate that galaxy is a training facility. Training for what anyway? Why a galaxy class? That is an incredibly large starship to be wasted and used as a training facility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't understand why the franchise would condemn itself to re-creating its weakest series, with the shallowest characters that had little to no dynamics. Just because it's the original doesn't mean it deserves some special treatment. I think some people go soft on it because "without it, we wouldn't have the following installments". I don't care. TOS was horrendous, which is not entirely its fault, as it was made in the '70s and '80s, when taste and depth in a storyline was nearly unheard of. I think it's total suicide, however, to pour a good bit of the franchise's popularity into this remake of TOS that not even TOS fans are too thrilled about.

 

Also, what in the blazes are Harold and Shawn of the Dead doing on the cast? Are they actively trying to make this a comedy now?

So Spock and McCoy (especially Spock) are shallow? O rly?

 

You want shallow? Try sitting through an episode of Voyager. Yes, Voyager was, for the most part, shallow drivel. As was Enterprise, for the most part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Spock and McCoy (especially Spock) are shallow? O rly?

 

You want shallow? Try sitting through an episode of Voyager. Yes, Voyager was, for the most part, shallow drivel. As was Enterprise, for the most part.

 

There were some decent episodes in Voyager. Although the programme isn't helped by the woodenness of Robert Beltran and Garrett Wang (or as I like to call him, Garotte - as in 'I wish I could... :p).

 

But yeah, ENT was pretty poor stuff, by and large. Again, poor acting (Bakula springs to mind), but also pedestrian direction didn't help (another thing the low points of Voyager suffered from).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have asked for the write up. There is nothing to indicate that galaxy is a training facility. Training for what anyway? Why a galaxy class? That is an incredibly large starship to be wasted and used as a training facility.

I just put it "star trek galaxy class mars training" into google. Here's the reference he probably got it from: http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Unnamed_Galaxy_class_starships#Utopia_Planitia.2C_Mars

 

Also, it's not like they were worried about the cost or resources when they built it. It's not hard to imagine a ship-wide simulation running on it. Besides, I'm not uber geek enough to ask for a write up. I may like Star Trek, but to be honest, I like it for the stories, not for the specifics.

 

And as I keep stating, I originally asked if it was in this thread in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...