Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 71
02-19-2012, 03:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by carmenara
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)
On TNG they show Galaxy Class ships being built on a planets surface................
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 72
02-19-2012, 03:25 PM
I actually quite enjoyed the 2009 film.
*Dodges banhammer*
And yes, Star Trek was always plot convenience. That isn't necessarily a bad thing.
While it did do away with 40 years of storyline, I think that this was done to make it more accessible. Another film with the TNG crew would probably have sucked and the Trek movie curse would have been continued. It may still be continued if the 2013 film is an improvement- I'll definitely be going to see that.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 73
02-19-2012, 03:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by madmoomoo
TAS, like enterprise is best forgotten, but can never be un-made.
TAS was fun and the 4th season of Enterprise had some of the best Star Trek episodes ever. Your opinion is just that your opinion.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 74
02-19-2012, 03:53 PM
Can I just say this, and it really ticks me off, it's this. Star Trek 2009 did something that no other Star Trek show had done since really TNG, and that was make Star Trek really popular again! That's now what makes me mad about it though. It's the fact that people say Abrams ruined "their" Trek for them, when it's clearly not just their show. Star Trek 2009, has some problems but half of that hate is becuase the new Star Trek movie has taken a much different direction then the original one. Is that a problem? No because the new one does not replace the original ones, in fact it's called an "alternate universe" for a reason.

What this thread sounds like is just like the Trekkies in this clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OpKBNqmSZo&feature=fvst This is why so many people either have made fun of trekkies or have been driven away from it.

It's definitly okay and legitimate to dislike something, but to keep it continuing on and on is just plain ridiculous and insane. This is not what Gene would have wanted at all. If anything this is exactly the situation that Gene Rodenberry would make an episode about, as social commentary.

Star Trek was over as a franchise until the new film gave it new life. You can dislike it but appreciate it for the fact that it has brought the franchise back to life. Go on keep arguing over this, see if anyone really cares. Meanwhile i'll kick back and watch some DS9 and read a comic set in the new universe


Quote:
Originally Posted by geofftillman View Post
On TNG they show Galaxy Class ships being built on a planets surface................
Thank you!
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 75
02-19-2012, 04:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radkip View Post
Do you not remember Spock's funeral? Or Picard burying Kirk on Veridian III? Or even Data sacrificing himself to stop Shinzon?

The only emotion I really remember from this movie was the emotion of anger and disgust, because it was incredibly far flung from what Star Trek has been established as over the past 40 years.
Right, right--because Kirk being killed by a rail girder is much more relevant.

Picard on Veridian and Data sacrificing himself were completely unnecessary--even internally within the plot. A contrived death of a character is no less contrived and unfulfilling.

Also, how are you not complaining that the TNG movies didn't butcher the characters from the series?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 76
02-19-2012, 05:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radkip View Post
Do you not remember Spock's funeral?
Um, the previous 15 years means everything that came out starting in 1994, TWOK was BEFORE that period started.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 77
02-20-2012, 07:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radkip View Post
Do you not remember Spock's funeral? Or Picard burying Kirk on Veridian III? Or even Data sacrificing himself to stop Shinzon?
Spock was indeed sad. Kirk's eye-roll worthy death killed any impact the burial might have had. And maybe if Data didn't die in such an eye-clawingly bad movie...
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 78
02-21-2012, 11:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by twg042370
Spock was indeed sad. Kirk's eye-roll worthy death killed any impact the burial might have had. And maybe if Data didn't die in such an eye-clawingly bad movie...
RE: eye-clawingly bad movie

I do wonder about the strategic purpose of the Enterprise sacrificing itself to stop Shinzon without waiting for allied forces to join up.

Sure, the Scimitar would be closer to Earth when the fleet interception is made, but at least they would conduct a more successful engagement rather than risking the Scimitar destroying/crippling the Enterprise then continuing on its way. Which is what should have happened because Shinzon parking his ship in front of the Enterprise (without first destroying its impulse drives) is silly.

From what I read about impulse drive specs a long time ago they can take the ship up to 0.99c in a matter of a couple dozen seconds or less. You do -not- want to be anywhere near a Star Trek ship's frontal arc.

That said though, all the pew pew pew was very STO like Poor Scimitar had such a low turning rate and could not evade the Enterprise's ramming attack, but in the earlier battle since it had Mark X injectors (+3.2-3.5 engine power) it could maintain a high rate of speed to boom and zoom with, counteracting its low turn rate in some way.

(There ya go, my method to get around the slow turnate of STO cruisers - add more speed)


All in all I think someone got the right idea to have a drawn out epic dogfight then someone else more senior said OMG too much awesomeness and killed the fun combat action by getting the ships to destroy each other, to amuse the destructo-happy audience.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 79
02-22-2012, 07:08 AM
People on here especially the guy with the not so great english need to read the sto book needs of the many and the countdown comic again... They explain the hobus nova taking out romulus and how nero got his ship to look like it did in the 2009 movie.

the only thing that bugged me about the 2009 movie was the design of the kelvin... as to that maybe i need to do more reading but doesnt a starship need two or more nacelles to make a stable warp bubble? new enterprise will take getting used to interior design wise (not as technologically advanced as archer's enterprise?)...
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 80
02-22-2012, 08:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by canadianmetalfan
People on here especially the guy with the not so great english need to read the sto book needs of the many and the countdown comic again... They explain the hobus nova taking out romulus and how nero got his ship to look like it did in the 2009 movie.

the only thing that bugged me about the 2009 movie was the design of the kelvin... as to that maybe i need to do more reading but doesnt a starship need two or more nacelles to make a stable warp bubble? new enterprise will take getting used to interior design wise (not as technologically advanced as archer's enterprise?)...
You do have a point there. There is some 'logic' behind the canon 'two nacelles up' preference for starship design.

I don't like the way the JJverse ships use the back of the warp nacelles as an 'engine' area so the ships look like Star Destroyers or something. Warp nacelles do -not- contribute to Newtonian propulsion! Cos if JJ wants to use the plasma exhausts for propulsion he would soon run into some fatal problems called asymmetrical thrust.

Also, canon ships seem to have those blue glowing 'radiator' like areas on the sides of the nacelles for a reason. They're using the big surface area for something.

Even the canon ships have impulse drives positioned somewhere near the centre of mass for the vessel, or at least where it won't flip the ship end over end should you try to use the impulse engines alone for conventional flight.
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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:18 AM.