Yeah, and I read the writers statement on this fact. they said it made more sense to build a starship within the gravitational field of a planet so that all the equipment can be tested in that field. The writers stated that most people mistakenly assume starships don't spend sufficient time in "gravity wells", when in fact they do. Seems to me they're the ones mistaken. They seem to be equating a starship being subject the gravity present up in orbit with that encountered down on the surface of a planet, which is completely wrong, of course. And if you look at the Enterprise with it's nacelles and primary hull, you can see such a design was not meant to operate in normal gravity.
The age thing is still throwing me. as you said, Kirk and Spock shouldn't have met at this early time. I can't figure out Chekov is on the ship, and Captain Pike actually seems to look too old for this time. This is before the events of "The Menagerie" (aka "The Cage"), yet Bruce Greenwood's Pike looks significantly older than Jeff Hunter did in the series, which i'm assuming was early to mid-30s. Greenwood looks to be late 40s to early 50s. -------------- Original message -------------- From: Daryle Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Another HUGE problem with assembling the Enterprise on Earth is that not only is it on Earth...It's in IOWA. How convenient. One discussion I had with another guy who runs a movie trailer site is that TOS people are going to have to swallow a really big pill with this story. If you've seen "The Cage" and "Where No Man Has Gone Before", you know that Spock and Kirk really have no history. Spock was loyal to Pike for many years, and Kirk's best friend was his helmsman when he took over the ship. Sulu was "Chief Mathematician" or some position like that. These details are important, and are basically being ignored. On Nov 23, 2008, at 10:55 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We had a long discussion in the last few weeks about a bunch of still shots from the movie, but I don't know that anyone was aware of these new trailers. I certainly wasn't. I just watched them and they look great, but i have some questions. JJ Abrams is an amazing action director, and I know the movie will rock in terms of FX, action, and overall look. I just hope that the more solid background of what makes Trek "Trek" is maintained. That is to say, for me, Star Trek has actually never been about the ships, the battles, the gadgets, the special effects. Those are icing to the cake of the people and the purpose of the franchise, which was to explore where humanity might go in the future, and how we'll bring our better selves to a whole new galaxy of discovery. I'm the guy who loves "The Search for Spock" because of its deep exploration of the bonds that made the NCC-1701 crew great (while most think it's a boring flick, preferring the action of "The Wrath of Khan", or the humour of "The Voyage Home"). I remember the conversations and emotional reveals as much as I do the Neck Pinches, Doomsday Machines, and Klingon Battle Cruise rs. I find the early s hows of the first season of the OS, with their heavy dramatic and emotional content, to be the core of what made Trek work, moreso than later shows with more fights and explosions. Trek to me is "To go where no one has gone before", but it is equally "Because the needs of the *one* outweigh the needs of the many". So while I know the film will be quite enjoyable, I'm curious--not doubtful, 'cause many Trek insiders have "vetted" it--but curious as to how much of that emotional heart of Trek Abrams can convey, especially in this odd Early Years take when the crew haven't yet worked together to form those bonds. And I wonder how he'll go from this film to any possible sequels? Will we then jump to the mainstream time of the series, with Kirk in the command chair, Spock as XO, and the rest? If so, then maybe we look at this reboot like the Trek movies 2, 3, and 4, which conveyed, respectively, action, emotion, and humour. In that case, maybe the later films will explore and grow the emotional depth that is Trek. Don't know. One final comment. I note that the Enterprise is being built on Earth in the new flick, but the original canon says it was assembled in space. I know Abrams didn't want to do that for some reason, saying they use anti-grav to build it on Earth. Still makes more sense to me to assemble a space ship--in space! And is it me, or does the sight of guys using blowtorches or arc welders in the 23rd century just seem--odd? Surely there'd be more sophisticated ways of assembling vessels than something straight out of a 20th century shipyard, a way to make the metal flow and meld together more seamlessly and efficiently than with sparks flying all over the place? I'd hate to see a warp capable vessel lose a battle or something because some disgruntled union guy didn't use enough solder on a weld in a Jeffries Tube or something! -------------- Original message -------------- From: "sincere1906" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Okay. I'm confused. Where is the chatter and talk about this trailer? True enough, I'm not on this site enough (2 or 3 times a month or so), which is why I usually do a search thru the archives to get in on any good convo. About the only thing I could find on the new Trek trailer released since the 17th was the rebooting of the X-Men franchise (which I won't comment on in this post). So I must have missed the thread where everybody talked bout the new Trek trailer, what they thought, whether they think this approach will work, what the purists think, if the rebooting Trek for a new generation can happen, any secrets they might now about the script, if Zachary Quinto (Sylar from Heroes) as Spock works or just spooks you out, etc. I know I have to be late on the jump here, but here goes anyway: http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/startrek / http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmJO3ppLBsk
