Star Trek XI Teaser

Bandit LOAF said:
I am kind of disappointed that it's apparently 'on Earth', as open as the canon is on the subject. I remember being five years old and having my dad explain to me that the Enterprise was SO big that it had to be built in space. So if it isn't something from the original series it's at least something that's been in our collective consciousnesses for a long time.
Click to expand...

Well... Loaf whos to say it isn't? I always thought that the parts to a ship were built down on the planet and then they were towed into orbit and assemble together there. In this trailer we don't see the parts getting fitted together, or the struts connecting the warp engines to the hull, so I think its still safe to say that your father may have still been right.

What I don't understand is... I thought Utopia Planitia was where the ship yards that built all the starships were, and that was on Mars.
 
I haven't looked through the encyclopedia type books for years, but I seem to remember that Enterprise-D was built at Utopia Planitia, but the original series ship was built at the San Francisco shipyards on earth?
 
Well... Loaf whos to say it isn't? I always thought that the parts to a ship were built down on the planet and then they were towed into orbit and assemble together there. In this trailer we don't see the parts getting fitted together, or the struts connecting the warp engines to the hull, so I think its still safe to say that your father may have still been right.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's possible... but the fact that the nacelles seem to be in the correct position (whether or not struts are visible) seems somewhat telling.

What I don't understand is... I thought Utopia Planitia was where the ship yards that built all the starships were, and that was on Mars.
Click to expand...

I think the concept was created for ST:TNG -- the original Enterprise's commissioning plaque says San Francisco.
 
Bandit LOAF said:
Yeah, it's possible... but the fact that the nacelles seem to be in the correct position (whether or not struts are visible) seems somewhat telling..
Click to expand...

I disagree, not to split hairs with you, but if you take a look at the unfinished hull, the struts that hold the warp engine up aren't finished. They may have have placed the warp engines in that way to show where they were going to go, purely for the viewers sake. I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong if the next teaser comes out revealing more.
 
Nomad Terror said:
As much as I strongly disagree with you about Cloverfield I thought this thread was about the teaser. :<
Click to expand...

Cloverfield was mentioned, and I gave my honest opinion- the trailer really was better, and normally I allow myself to skip the trailers- that's some of the highest praise I can give it. I'll be glad to argue Cloverfield elsewhere, though.

But man, did that trailer get me excited... for over a year I'd been checking up on the status of the movie and was afraid it'd launch into development hell and go nowhere. Knowing it'll definitely be out now is great! My dad got me into trek- and he's getting on in years, but I'll be dragging him into the theater for a midnite showing =)
 
Bandit LOAF said:
I am kind of disappointed that it's apparently 'on Earth', as open as the canon is on the subject. I remember being five years old and having my dad explain to me that the Enterprise was SO big that it had to be built in space. So if it isn't something from the original series it's at least something that's been in our collective consciousnesses for a long time.
Click to expand...

It looks to me more like it's being built in "drydock" in space--the construction area is enclosed so that it can have an atmosphere in order to allow the workers to work without space suits, and it has artificial gravity so that they can use wrenches and hammers and such without having to strap themselves to the hull. In Star Trek III, we saw the Enterprise and Excelsior docked in a huge hangar a couple of kilometers across on the inside, so having enclosed orbital structures large enough to assemble a large starship in is not unreasonable.
 
I'm almost certain that somewhere- I believe in the book adaptions of each and every single episode (possible in the cartoon series) that I read Kirk stating the Enterprise would be destroyed if they brought it down. Or it may have been in one of the comics.

But whichever. I care little either way.
 
There's certaintly a lot more stresses involved in entering atmosphere versus exiting atmosphere, especially if the ship in question can't generate enough thrust to control the descent.
 
It wasn't going to be brought down by Kirk- come to think of it I'm _certain_ this was the comics- but by a tractor beam or the like. I don't recall if a good explanation was given.
 
Im going to be interested to see how they cover the two 5-year missions before Kirk's command... the first being the Captain in the animated series. The second is Captain Christopher Pike. I liked that guy, I always thought he bared a striking resemblence to Frank Liotta... though a few of my friends think I'm crazy, what do you guys think?? \/
 

Attachments

  • Capt_Christopher_Pike.jpg
    Capt_Christopher_Pike.jpg
    28.7 KB · Views: 142
  • tn2_ray_liotta_4.jpg
    tn2_ray_liotta_4.jpg
    21.5 KB · Views: 160
Here's some spoiler-based theory about the movie. Read at your own risk:

The internet is incredibly angry that the movie isn't taking into account various elements of the TOS backstory, as the internet is such to do... but it seems to be disregarding everything we know about the movie thus far in its constant pursuit of something to complain about.

The story involves someone traveling back in time to kill Kirk as a child and Spock traveling back to stop him. We know from casting and the shooting description that there's a scene of a (human) being born on Vulcan. It stands to reason that Spock has gone back in time to protect Kirk as a baby... and as a result has changed the timeline away from the one we know.

This is why they've cast an *older* man as Pike - if you read that interview with him that my brother did a while back, you'll note that he insisted there was a reason for that... what we see in the movie will be an Enterprise that's still commanded by Pike when Kirk should be in charge, since the timeline has changed. Think Tapestry, but with the change actually affecting history...
 
Interesting, LOAF. So if I am understanding you correctly, unlike most occasions that include time traveling, where the 'damage' is always undone, the timeline will be changed for good and reflect a permanent alteration that then becomes canon?

@ frosty - it's actually Ray Liotta...:)
 
I don't know if damage would be undone or not -- it seems to me that 'fixing' it should still be the point of the movie's story... possibly with the moral aspect of knowing that if everything is fixed then Pike will become crippled.
 
Bandit LOAF said:
I don't know if damage would be undone or not -- it seems to me that 'fixing' it should still be the point of the movie's story... possibly with the moral aspect of knowing that if everything is fixed then Pike will become crippled.
Click to expand...

That would be interesting to see. But I'll be interested in finding out how this whole thing affected Pike's promotion. From what I remember, Pike left the Enterprise because he was promoted to the rank of "Fleet Captain." Though I'm not sure what that is exactly, I always assumed it was as follows

TOS rank - TNG Rank
Fleet Captain - Admiral Gold box, one pip
Commodore - Admiral Gold Box, two pips

Though I could be wrong.
 
frostytheplebe said:
Though I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

I don't believe I ever saw a *ranking* Commodore or Fleet Captain on TNG. You may be confusing Commodore with Rear Admiral? (I believe Commodore is used to tell apart from a ship's assigned captain and a second equal ranking officer on the bridge?)
 
Vinman said:
The guy from the Medal of Honor games is doing the music for Star Trek XI?
Click to expand...

Yes, since you obviously missed that he's scored the last three JJ Abrams projects - Alias, Lost and the last Mission Impossible movie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top