Just saw the trailer as well. They are still building the damnfool ship at the bottom of a hole.
But it otherwise looks cool.
Ah, so that is why Heroes and BSG threads get so tiresome. I had no idea people thought that wailing and gnashing teeth is a discussion.
I could point out that, in prior continuities, tractor beams haven’t been shown to have orbital range, so they’d need other atmospheric ships to tow the Enterprise up. Slowly enough so atmospheric turbulence wasn’t an issue, I guess.
But instead, I’ll just point out that tractor-beaming the Enterprise into space is not cool. Therefore, that is not what they do. QED, or something.
I don’t watch Heroes or BSG, but I did enjoy the Trek discussions. Sorry for tiring you. Enjoy high school.
A reboot of Trek could work, after all the rebooting of the Bond franchise worked with Casino Royale, but I’m not convinced that Abrams is the man to do it. Everything of his work that I’ve seen has either sucked or been rather “thin” in terms of plot, charaters, etc. He is a good director, IMHO, so from that standpoint, I would expect the film to not be a total abortion.
What would need to happen for reboot of the franchise to work is if you had a story which cleaned up the baggage accumulated by the series (continuity screwups, the movies that most people think never should have happened, etc.) and brought the characters back to their essence. I know the argument for the direction this film is supposed to be going in is that “they’re aiming for a mass audience” which is just plain silly. We’re talking about a franchise that is 40+ years old, has spawned 6 different TV series, over a dozen movies, thousands of novels, conventions, entries in the OED, and popular phrases known by almost everyone on the plant (its even been referenced in country music songs). How do you get more “mass” than that?
Having just watched it on YouTube, I’ve got a number of questions about it.
Like, WTH’s the deal with the classic Vette? Did Kirk whip one of those out of a replicator (which they didn’t have in TOS) or did he drive an extremely old classic car over a cliff? Or was this all in a holodeck? Then there’s the “buckle up” line. Did they actually get smart and finally install seatbelts? Also, where is Kirk in the beginning (And why does it look like he’s got a bad dye job?)? Is he on Earth? The colony where he was raised by his uncle? (Which really makes it bizarre as to how a classic Vette wound up there.) Pegg seems to have adopted the movie version of Scotty’s personality, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing.I’m not going to say that the trailer sucks, as from an objective standpoint, there’s a lot of things which tend to be cool (things going “boom” for example), but for some reason, Hollywood is able to make fantastic trailers for utterly shitty movies.
Is anyone else a little perturbed that there is no mention of Kirk’s original first officer Gary Mitchell in the new movie? Or have I just missed something? Or is this another “reboot” concession I’m going to have to make?
Well, there’s also no indication that the Enterprise was ever captained by Robert April or Christopher Pike in the trailer (It seeming to have just been launched, with an inexperienced crew at the helm. Wonder if those kids can steer?), so I’m thinking Mitchell’s been rebooted out of the storyline.
I obviously don’t know how he got it in the film, but I’m pretty sure they had replicators in TOS, except they were called “food slots”. It’s not such a leap to think they had a similar system for manufacturing non-food items. ST:Enterprise had it’s “protein resequencer”, which seemed like a proto-replicator (at least for food).
Pike is the Captain in the film
Tukerfan said:
Like, WTH’s the deal with the classic Vette? Did Kirk whip one of those out of a replicator (which they didn’t have in TOS) or did he drive an extremely old classic car over a cliff? Or was this all in a holodeck?
Exactly. Seeing
The Speedo sweep past 90 I thought ‘that’s not very fast’, then I thought ‘hey, that motorcycle had no wheels’, then I thought ‘hey, they just toasted a perfectly nice C2!’ THEN I thought 'there’s no way he could have ‘lept 90 mph in one direction with the car going in the other…it’d be like an airplane taking off on a tredmill’
Then I thought I thought too much.
We’ve had this subject come up before.
And the conscensous was that there were no replicators in TOS, even though it certainly looks like there were in TOS. The proof of this being the episode Charlie X where the ship’s cook talks to Kirk, and the kitchen scene in ST VI: The Undiscovered Country. The scene where Kirk sticks his card in a slot and dinner pops right out in that one TOS episode is left unexplained.
Hmm… well I’ll bow to superior knowledge. Just goes to show how screwed up the original continuity has become though.
Why the Hell would there be Bussard ramscoops on the Enterprise?
If the food slots were replicators, there would be no way for tribbles to eat Kirk’s chicken sandwich and coffee before the tray was delivered to him.
The ultimate source of the Enterprise’s fuel. Interstellar hydrogen is pulled in, presumably with tractor beams a million times more efficient than the magnetic ramscoops that have been proposed in real life. The impulse engines are powered by fusion reactors. The warp engines require antimatter which is somehow “bred” from ordinary matter (monopole-catalyzed proton decay?). Note that the original Enterprise had a maximum cruise speed of warp 6 but routinely went slower- warp 3 or 4. Presumably because antimatter was bred and stored at a slower rate than it could be expended.
Yabut:
In one episode, mebbe the same one, I dunno, can’t stand the tribbles ep., Kirk sticks his card in the slot, the meal that pops out a second later is entirely different than what he wanted, and McCoy explains to him that he’d programed the ship’s computer to new recipes for Kirk as he thought Kirk was getting fat, or something. The implication is that the ship’s computer is squirting out meals in a couple of seconds, based on programs stored in a data base. While not called a “replicator,” in actions, it certainly seems to resemble one. Either way, this still doesn’t explain what Kirk is doing driving a 200 year old car at the opening of the trailer.
Where does that come from?
Considering how fractured the continuity is in the existing franchise of Star Trek shows and movies, I guess it’s pointless to criticize on that basis. If it’s a strong story that’s reasonably true the characters, maybe that’s all we can expect.
It’s in the TNG tech manual written by Mike Okuda.
Oh god, did I just type that?
Yes, you did. Here’s your tranya. Or would you prefer Saurian brandy?
Dude, you’re on the internet, posting in a thread about Star Trek. It doesn’t get much nerdier than that. Admitting that you’ve read the tech manual is par for the course.
?
There are people who *don’t *own the Tech Manual?