Tech Issues In The New Movie

[AnyStar]

OTOH, the TOS ship also had very blatant concrete floors (although they gradually got covered with silly carpeting), was infested with idiotic pipes, and had nonsensical labeling everywhere. When TOS moved to the silver screen, all these things got worse, not better. Why should we hold STXI to a different standard?

i'll take purposely placed "GN-DN" pipes, over a brewery anyday

 

[Myasishchev]

^ There is a difference between daring costumes as a pattern that imitated the fashion craze-of-the-day (mini-skirts in the sexist 1960s) and making a deliberate choice of a different costume (catsuit) on a buxom actress (why not a standard unisex starfleet jumpsuit from the beginning?) in the 1980s. Clearly, it was more than just period-sexism and fashion at work in the later example. Or, to put it another way, you didn't see Dr. Crusher or Lt. Yar reporting for duty on the bridge wearing a catsuit.

I mean, I agree they're stupid. Just not necessarily offensive.

 

[Mr. B]

OTOH, the TOS ship also had very blatant concrete floors (although they gradually got covered with silly carpeting), was infested with idiotic pipes, and had nonsensical labeling everywhere.

Inflation adjusted TOS per-episode budget - $1,180,377
Star Trek XI Production Budget - $150,000,000

I would disagree that the TOS film production values were of a lower standard that the original television series... and we both know why the unreadable labeling was laced with humor.

 

[Dukhat]

Finally sat down with the "Art of the Film" book while at Borders last night (suffice it to say that the book went right back on the shelf afterwards). Amongst the howlers, was the statement that if they'd done the original bridge it'd look ridiculous and small, and that the new ship looked more "functional".

Both sentiments, in my not-so-humble opinion, are full of crap.

Granted, the bit about the bridge is largely a matter of taste (I think rather telling that they never even tried a design approximating the original bridge), but the the ship, and some of the misconceptions about how things work, are another matter. Besides the pylons that look about as functional as tailfins on an old Cadillac, there's the statement that carries the old FJ concept of the warp nacelles acting as some sort of exotic jet engine, sucking in space-time in one end and out the other, and carries it one further by saying it sucks in interstellar antimatter and basically burns it.

Could they be any more clueless?

The idiotic notion that the Bussard collectors are there to suck up antimatter only magnifies the issue of how these guys didn't have a clue about the subject matter.

Not even the worst piece of convoluted technobabble from any of the previous series or movies approaches the absolute technical incompetence and malpractice we were presented with in this film.

OK. We all get it that you don't like the science of this movie (or anything else about it for that matter, even though the "science" in TOS and it's movies was just as bad). You don't have to keep beating a dead horse about it.

 

[Mr. B]

Quoting several paragraphs prior to writing two sentences does not make your post appear more substantive.

 

[Wingsley]

i'll put it this way:

TMP is now 30yo. i doubt in 30 years XI will still be talked about by trekkies the way TMP still is...

A very worthwhile point, considering how heavily ballyhooed and criticized TMP has been ever since Dec. of '79. Must be there was something worth talking about there after all.

 

[AnyStar]

in that case i'll shorten my estimate. if XI spawns five sequels with the same cast and premise, then i'll eat my words.

 

[Dukhat]

Quoting several paragraphs prior to writing two sentences does not make your post appear more substantive.

And yet my point still got across.

 

[trevanian]

Quoting several paragraphs prior to writing two sentences does not make your post appear more substantive.

And yet my point still got across.

Don't see a point at all, just you trying to shout somebody down when they make an articulate point you disagree with.

 

[Dukhat]

Quoting several paragraphs prior to writing two sentences does not make your post appear more substantive.

And yet my point still got across.

Don't see a point at all, just you trying to shout somebody down when they make an articulate point you disagree with.

Oh yeah, that's totally what I did

 

[Unicron]

Dial it back now. Next comment I see that looks like a flame or troll will be warned appropriately.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Maybe someone would like to rip on the design of the phasers....?

 

[Vance]

Boys. Boys.

I have a ten inch penis. Neither of you do. I win.

Now, can we please talk about Trek Tech in this forum without the one-upmanship?

 

[ancient]

Maybe someone would like to rip on the design of the phasers....?

Come on man, stop making fun of their toys.

I mean weapons.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Finally sat down with the "Art of the Film" book while at Borders last night (suffice it to say that the book went right back on the shelf afterwards). Amongst the howlers, was the statement that if they'd done the original bridge it'd look ridiculous and small, and that the new ship looked more "functional".

Both sentiments, in my not-so-humble opinion, are full of crap.

Granted, the bit about the bridge is largely a matter of taste (I think rather telling that they never even tried a design approximating the original bridge), but the the ship, and some of the misconceptions about how things work, are another matter. Besides the pylons that look about as functional as tailfins on an old Cadillac, there's the statement that carries the old FJ concept of the warp nacelles acting as some sort of exotic jet engine, sucking in space-time in one end and out the other, and carries it one further by saying it sucks in interstellar antimatter and basically burns it.

Could they be any more clueless?

Have at it, kids.

I'm trying to find a reason to believe this entire thread is anything but thinly veiled flamebait troll, but...

 

[Wingsley]

^ Didn't I suggest that already? Be original, please...

 

[Vance]

Just because someone posts something that they don't like when you do doesn't make it a trolling post. They're entitled to that opinion...

however

Feeling the need to pop in every single time someone doesn't like the movie to personally attack them? I'm thinking that that qualifies.

Seriously, are we just going to have to outright ban ALL movie threads here?

 

[ancient]

All I know is that it's both convenient and disturbing that I could leave for several months and then return and keep posting as if nothing happened because none of the conversation has progressed since may.

Has this been going on the entire time? I think it's fairly obvious that CRA is a stubbon guy who knows what he likes/hates and apparently manages to tease the same people the same way and get the same outraged response about 10,000 times in a row.

It's like sex, only better.

 

[Captain Robert April]

^ Clean up is a lot easier, too.

 

[Vance]

Okay, fine, but it actually pisses me off a bit too. I would like to talk the tech in the tech forums, oddly enough, but I find I usually can't because there's not a thread some of you don't go to where you won't ruin it with an endless bitch session.

So I'm asking you lot, please, knock it the hell off, as a fellow tech fan.