Star Trek 09 review thread

[tezunegari]

In one of the trailers we see Enterprise being constructed planetside.
Does the movie explain how they get a monsterprise off the planet or why they build it planetside at all?

This is a review thread, not a tech doscussion thread.
But no, it's not explained how or why. Does it need to be?

I did ask to verify if a curious fact would be answered in the movie or not. Does that already fall under tech discussion?
If that is the case I apologies.

But is it needed to comment on it in the movie?
I guess not but it does present a drastic change of operations. If ENT is still canon* (at least it should be considering Nero arrived after the Federation was founded) so I would consider it to be an interesting piece of information. Wouldn't gravity put a heavy strain on the pylons holding the warp nacelles and the saucer section?

And the ability to land on a planet or take off from a planet was never a common ability of the bigger Trek starships. Though it was hinted in Generations that they could scavenge the crashd saucer section but didn't because of severe damage to it.
The only ships with landing gear to my knowledge are runabouts and Voyager and all ship construction of the original timeline where conducted in spacedocks.

The question how and why they do it are definitely tech questions though.

* If all tv shows and movies are to be considered canon that is

[General Zod]

I did ask to verify if a curious fact would be answered in the movie or not. Does that already fall under tech discussion?
If that is the case I apologies.

But is it needed to comment on it in the movie?
I guess not but it does present a drastic change of operations. If ENT is still canon* (at least it should be considering Nero arrived after the Federation was founded) so I would consider it to be an interesting piece of information. Wouldn't gravity put a heavy strain on the pylons holding the warp nacelles and the saucer section?

And the ability to land on a planet or take off from a planet was never a common ability of the bigger Trek starships. Though it was hinted in Generations that they could scavenge the crashd saucer section but didn't because of severe damage to it.
The only ships with landing gear to my knowledge are runabouts and Voyager and all ship construction of the original timeline where conducted in spacedocks.

The question how and why they do it are definitely tech questions though.

* If all tv shows and movies are to be considered canon that is

Why not wait until the movie is actually, I dunno, out in theaters for the rest of the world before asking questions about what happens in it? As it is only a small fraction of people have been able to see it, and I'm guessing nobody here is going to be able (or willing) to answer your questions until it's officially released.

[Worlds Spanner]

My disagreement with Ebert can be summed up right here:

warp speed...prevents any sense of wonder at the immensity of outer space

I just don't see that at all. Speed makes travel remotely possible, but in Star Trek there has always been a sense of vast distances, unreachable heights, and emptiness. I mean, the entire premise is that the Enterprise is Out There. Compared to the much greater speeds of Star Wars, which make the galaxy a playground for traders and warriors, and that sums up one of the big differences in the tones of the franchises.

I think Ebert just doesn't get sci fi.

[Stark]

I think he's talking about the effect, that it's somehow obscuring the romantic vistas of space.

[Stofsk]

I think he's talking about the effect, that it's somehow obscuring the romantic vistas of space.

You want to know what's in outer space? More space!

Visiting strange new worlds is where the shit is at. Getting from A to B isn't supposed to be interesting, it's supposed to be expeditable. The quicker, the better.

[Stark]

Clearly, Ebert longs for the day of Enterprise scaling towards the camera at an odd angle?

[Darth Wong]

Popcorn movie? Yes, I suppose - in the sense that it's bright, loud and accesible, but certainly not in the sense that it's vapid or shallow. I hope you're not taking the wrong message away from Ebert's review.

Ebert's review does not have a single "message". However, one of the messages of his review is that it's a popcorn movie. He's not saying it's awful, and he acknowledges that it has some fun and even affecting moments, but let's be honest: he gives it only 2½ stars and ends his review by hoping that the sequel has more substance to it.

It says something that Ebert is one of only *four* critics so far not to be positive about the movie, and even his review is hardly scathing.

Ebert's reviews are unusual in the sense that they do not simply give a "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" on the movie (which is ironic, given his claim to fame), but rather, they provide insights into the nature of the film which different readers may interpret in different ways. You said earlier that people use him as a "benchmark"; I do not personally do that. However, I find his reviews give me more insight into what the film will be like than other peoples' reviews. Even when I strongly disagree with him about a film (which has happened on numerous occasions), I find that his review says a lot about the film which other reviewers fail to do in their haste to slap adjectives on it.

[Darth Wong]

I think he's talking about the effect, that it's somehow obscuring the romantic vistas of space.

You want to know what's in outer space? More space!

Visiting strange new worlds is where the shit is at. Getting from A to B isn't supposed to be interesting, it's supposed to be expeditable. The quicker, the better.

The problem comes when those strange new worlds are not "strange" at all, and do not feel "new" either. That's when you might hope that the journey itself was more fraught with drama.

[Stark]

Something I got from reading the reviews posted in this thread is how worthless most of them are; full of emotive, meaningless 'sense' words, more intent on communicating to you a sensation than actually informing you of anything. The gushing early reviews are the worst; almost zero information, just 'wow Star Trek boom bang' and 'honours the franchise but so new too'.

Ebert might not be right, but at least he talks about things rather than saying 'Wow what a thrill ride 5/5' or 'shallow and unconvincing 1/5'.

[Darth Wong]

Something I got from reading the reviews posted in this thread is how worthless most of them are; full of emotive, meaningless 'sense' words, more intent on communicating to you a sensation than actually informing you of anything. The gushing early reviews are the worst; almost zero information, just 'wow Star Trek boom bang' and 'honours the franchise but so new too'.

Ebert might not be right, but at least he talks about things rather than saying 'Wow what a thrill ride 5/5' or 'shallow and unconvincing 1/5'.

As I said, most reviewers are content to slap adjectives on a film. I can get that kind of review by asking for opinions from random strangers on a subway.

[Darth Wong]

In one of the trailers we see Enterprise being constructed planetside.
Does the movie explain how they get a monsterprise off the planet or why they build it planetside at all?

This is a review thread, not a tech doscussion thread.
But no, it's not explained how or why. Does it need to be?

Yes it does, because it's stupid. If I saw a modern-era movie where they were building a blue-water ship in the middle of the desert, I'd want them to explain why. Similarly, if someone builds an interstellar spaceship on the ground, I think it's reasonable to ask why they would do that, when space is a much more logical place to build it.

Of course, we know why: because it would look cool onscreen, and who really cares if it makes sense because this is just space opera. In this case, space opera where the engineers are apparently idiots.

[Zablorg]

The answer the writers provided was;

Some fans also take issue with the idea that they're building the Enterprise on Earth, instead of assembling it in space. Care to respond?


Orci: The response is that the Enterprise is not, nor has it ever been, a pleasure yacht. It's a ship that's able to warp space around it to several times the weight of gravity. So the idea that it somehow couldn't handle one Earth atmosphere of gravity was not something I think anyone who would board that ship would ever want to contemplate. The rationale for building it into space is when you have flimsy things that never have to be in gravity, but that's not what the starship Enterprise is.

[Stark]

Orci might have just made himself look dumb.

It's sad that he couldn't just answer that question with 'who cares; it's not meant to be serious'. He had to give a marketing answer - 'holy cow Enterprise fucks up your pussy gravity bitch! ROCK ON!'

[General Zod]

Orci might have just made himself look dumb.

It's sad that he couldn't just answer that question with 'who cares; it's not meant to be serious'. He had to give a marketing answer - 'holy cow Enterprise fucks up your pussy gravity bitch! ROCK ON!'

Even a lazy answer about it costing fewer resources to build on Earth and then launch it or wanting to keep it secret would have made slightly more sense.

[Stofsk]

I think he's talking about the effect, that it's somehow obscuring the romantic vistas of space.

You want to know what's in outer space? More space!

Visiting strange new worlds is where the shit is at. Getting from A to B isn't supposed to be interesting, it's supposed to be expeditable. The quicker, the better.

The problem comes when those strange new worlds are not "strange" at all, and do not feel "new" either. That's when you might hope that the journey itself was more fraught with drama.

From the diary of a space explorer:

"Dear Diary. Man, I miss TV. Goddamn it, why didn't I pack a TV? Oh, how I long for some TV! Could this ship be any slower?"



You actually hit upon something that I always thought about: what would these guys get up to when they're not putting on red shirts and risking their lives on some godforsaken planet in the middle of nowhere, where if they're not being attacked by vampiric gas clouds it's poison plants, mind-bending spores or such the like? Star Trek, as conceived, usually had Kirk and Spock (sometimes McCoy) as part of the landing party, with some poor shmuck tagging along who gets zapped for his pains. It would have been interesting to conceive of Star Trek with the command crew safe in their little cocoon in orbit, while the hazardous duty of space exploration gets undertaken by a group of increasingly fatalistic professionals. In between planet hopping, you could have drama as these two groups have to live with each other. The away team could harbour resentment towards the bridge team for constantly sending them into danger or dropping the ball with intel etc, while the bridge team might have to deal with guilt issues when away teams get into trouble (and whether the guys on the bridge could have done anything about it, prepared the team better, and so on).

It would be different, I think.

[open_sketchbook]

Well, the Monsterprise isn't likely capable of landing, but I can see it able to enter atmosphere and provide close range, dramatic fire support and/or loom ominously over enemy cities and bases. The ability to enter atmosphere, especially if such an ability is unusual in the newTrek verse, might be pretty useful; for one, you'd pretty much completely drop off heat-based sensors.

[Stark]

People who use the term 'Monsterprise' are going on a list, I just want you to know that.

Orci didn't say the ship can enter atmo; he said the ship is tough and super-fast, ergo there is no reason not to build it on the surface.

Except, y'know, how building it in a gravity well is a pain in the ass.

[Worlds Spanner]

I don't see why building it on the surface is a) in any way related to what it does once it is in operation and b) necessarily inefficient.

I do see the point about the gravity well, but impulse power is pretty cheap. Perhaps they have a few "sleds" that they use like slipways - platforms that support all the protruding parts of the ship while it's under construction and then loft it into orbit, and that's easier than fabricating and assembling components in space.

The point is if we really want to rationalize it we can, in the mean time who cares?

[Stofsk]

People who use the term 'Monsterprise' are going on a list, I just want you to know that.

You beat me to it. I am getting sick and tired of that phrase and I think I first read it five minutes ago.

[Stark]

It appears typical of nerds to generate staggeringly lame 'clever' terms for things they fixate on in situations like this; I believe the term emerged when people found out that the ship is now far larger (a 'monster') and they were still pathetically trying to fit it into the old continuity.

[Zablorg]

He also said something about needing to build the nacelles in a gravity well. When asked why, he responded (in a naturally more subtle fashion) that it's the way the nacelles work ok leave me alone.

It's quite obvious that they've imagined up the justifications afterwards. What would the reaction be if he replied "Look, I actually don't give a shit, okay?".

[open_sketchbook]

Or quite simply, the dramatic scene came first and the justification came later. I know we all love our rationality but honestly movies are made by artists, not engineers, and going "RUINED FOREVER!" over some less-than-optimal shipyard choices, especially in a Star Trek movie, is really pretty pointless.

[Stark]

Or quite simply, the dramatic scene came first and the justification came later. I know we all love our rationality but honestly movies are made by artists, not engineers, and going "RUINED FOREVER!" over some less-than-optimal shipyard choices, especially in a Star Trek movie, is really pretty pointless.

You mean... just like Mike said several posts back? How people agree it doesn't matter? How people are just talking about how amusing it is that Orci has to bust out a marketing response rather than saying 'c'mon guys who cares'?

[open_sketchbook]

This is what happens when I post while medicated. Remember kids, don't painkillers and post! Or, something.

[Darth Wong]

I don't see why building it on the surface is a) in any way related to what it does once it is in operation and b) necessarily inefficient.

Are you serious? It is ridiculously inefficient to build any kind of large structure in a gravity well. The only reason we do it is because we have no choice.

Take a domed stadium for example; while the dome may be strong enough to support itself against gravity once it's built, it is incomplete during construction, so it won't support itself. All of the structural girders won't be in place yet, and it won't have anywhere near the strength it would have at completion. So you have to scaffold the fuck out of it, or find other creative ways to keep it from falling apart while it's half-built. You also have to expend all kinds of energy moving material to the top of it while you're building it.

The writer who said it made sense because the ship can handle multiple Gs when complete is an idiot. Gravity adds a huge amount of unnecessary difficulty to the process of building any large structure, no matter how strong it will be when it's complete.

I do see the point about the gravity well, but impulse power is pretty cheap.

You can't refute an accusation about inefficiency by claiming that they can afford to be inefficient.

Perhaps they have a few "sleds" that they use like slipways - platforms that support all the protruding parts of the ship while it's under construction and then loft it into orbit, and that's easier than fabricating and assembling components in space.

So you're suggesting that they use anti-gravity sleds as a form of scaffolding, which must maintain position and rigidity for months at a time, and that this is "easier" than fabricating the ship in space despite the fact that they have extensive space-based facilities and personnel and they have to expend the energy to get that mass into orbit sooner or later anyway?

The point is if we really want to rationalize it we can, in the mean time who cares?

No you can not rationalize it. You can say "who cares" if you want, but that's not what you're doing: you're pretending that it's not as stupid as it is.