Star Trek Online

Star Trek Online (http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/index.php)
-   Ten Forward (http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/forumdisplay.php?f=129)
-   -   Star trek 2009 (http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=254953)

Archived Post 02-14-2012 04:35 PM

Star trek 2009
 
I'm watching this on fx.

I was wondering why uhura and the rest of the starfleet cadets would happen to be in Iowa. And why the enterprise just happened to be being built in Iowa. And why the shuttle for new recruits would be lifting off from Iowa. What's so special about iowa? And were uhura and the rest of the red-uniformed cadets already a year into the academy? They were already dressed in uniforms. So, if the shuttle is for new recruits, why were they already dressed but Kirk and bones weren't? At first I thought uhura and the other red shirts were already a year in, and Kirk graduated in years, hence everyone graduating at the same time. But this doesn't explain bones in 3 years. Was this all for plot convenience?

Archived Post 02-14-2012 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CardassianNinja (Post 4022454)
Was this all for plot convenience?

Yes. yes it was. :D

Archived Post 02-14-2012 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CardassianNinja (Post 4022454)
I'm watching this on fx.

I was wondering why uhura and the rest of the starfleet cadets would happen to be in Iowa. And why the enterprise just happened to be being built in Iowa. And why the shuttle for new recruits would be lifting off from Iowa. What's so special about iowa? And were uhura and the rest of the red-uniformed cadets already a year into the academy? They were already dressed in uniforms. So, if the shuttle is for new recruits, why were they already dressed but Kirk and bones weren't? At first I thought uhura and the other red shirts were already a year in, and Kirk graduated in years, hence everyone graduating at the same time. But this doesn't explain bones in 3 years. Was this all for plot convenience?

Different universe. 2009 has about nothing to do with Star Trek other than names and certain characters.

This is all plot convenience if that's what you want to call it.

Archived Post 02-14-2012 05:48 PM

thats because star trek 2009 had absolutly nothing to do with... wait for it... Star Trek. Not sure what it was but it wasnt star trek.

As far as im concerned JJ Abrams owes me money for watching that garbage.

Archived Post 02-14-2012 05:58 PM

Of course it is star trek. That's a huge overstatement.

And:

If Vulcan was destroyed, whatever planet or moon Spock and Kirk ended up on, which was close enough to view Vulcan disappear, it doesn't seem to have suffered any effects from the gravitational forces that would've been thrown out of wack in that system.

Archived Post 02-14-2012 06:03 PM

I was born and raised in Iowa...I just don't ever remember any canyons to drive Corvettes off of...LOL

Archived Post 02-14-2012 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cryptiecop
I was born and raised in Iowa...I just don't ever remember any canyons to drive Corvettes off of...LOL

Haha no cliffs in Iowa? Maybe it was a man made quarry or somethin.

Archived Post 02-14-2012 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cryptiecop
I was born and raised in Iowa...I just don't ever remember any canyons to drive Corvettes off of...LOL

I believe there is something in the Star Trek lore about an earthquake that opens up some chasm in Iowa. Times change.

Archived Post 02-14-2012 06:17 PM

The fact that they built the Enterprise on ground is a huge plot hole. Such a waste of resources to build that sort of spaceframe on the ground then have to launch it into orbit (it's not even remotely aerodynamic or feasible even with technobabble enhanced space tech)

Archived Post 02-14-2012 06:21 PM

Scotty just beamed the ship into orbit.

Hey- nobody's ever beamed a ship before!!! I better patten that.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:28 PM.