Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > So much for the Star Trek Movie

So much for the Star Trek Movie (Page 3)
Thread Tools
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: New York, NY, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2008, 03:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Jawbone54 View Post
Seriously, I'm scared they're going to botch it up too, but this thread has made me realize that the whiniest, most nit-picky two groups of people are Mac fans and Star Trek fans.

Add the two together, and...
Not so much the fans but the people who think Kirk and Jobs are actually their friends. The people who write angry letters to Apple because the widgets in iTunes 8 are two pixels smaller than they should be are the same people who get angry because Kirk clearly didn't wear that shirt until episode 9 or season 2.

I believe the term you're looking for is "losers".
The era of anthropomorphizing hardware is over.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2008, 04:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by calverson View Post
IMO, Vanilla Sky really has the best opening scene. The way that it soars over NYC, and the intermitted black screen, then the Abre Los Ohos and... Radiohead.

edit: Then you see Tom Cruise half nekkid... yikes.
I didn't realize that Vanilla Sky was a Bond movie.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2008, 07:22 AM
 
Star Trek *does not* need a reboot. The original series was excellent and classic. The Next Generation was exactly that-- the creator's take on the next generation on Star Trek. It was different, and grew into its own, but it became Star Trek, too. Now, let's review what cam after:

Deep Space Nine... well, it wasn't a bad series... and it borrowed many Star Trek elements, but in my opinion, it never became Star Trek-- it became an ongoing novella, instead of being driven by shorter, episode-long stories, with war as a central theme... not Star Trek at all.

Voyager was a return to more core Star Trek values, and it was fun. It reminded me more of the original Star Trek at times. But Janeway was nowhere near the captain (actress?) Picard was, and the series never reached the level of TNG. The ship was also going the wrong way, and the crew never missed a chance to cheat their way home, and fix their mistakes with countless time travel trips.

There were great characters in there (Neelix, The Doctor, Tuvok) but they were never given the chance to grow, and took a back seat to lessor characters (Chakotay, Seven of Nine). Then again, I'm sure having a woman captain was inspiring to many little girls (and inspiring is something Star Trek is about), and it did keep the spirit of Star Trek. I consider Voyager a Star Trek derivative which kept that spirit.

Enterprise... was boring. I greatly enjoy the original Star Trek even today, forty years after it was originally aired, for a less technologically-savvy and one can argue, more easily impressed audience. But the story was there, the humanity was there, the imagination was there, and that has endured.

Enterprise, on the other hand, not only completely contradicted the established Star Trek history, almost purposely and mockingly from episode # 1, but managed to come up with such boring stories, and such a humdrum way of telling them, that I felt genuinely bored-- something I had never felt before while watching anything with the Star Trek name to it, even DS9. That's when i knew something was really wrong.

In an attempt to make Star Trek more accessible or down-to-Earth, they made it mundane, even scrapping the wonderful instrumental music that has always introduced Star Trek for a catchy pop tune. Well intentioned perhaps, but a total failure to realize what Star Trek is about. I found it sad how the writers could not keep from habitually going back/forward to future-era tech (holodeck, cloaking device, etc.) to make a story. TOS never needed these, and yet they told good stories. The lack of creativity was awful.

The issues between the Vulcans and the humans only distanced the series from Star Trek. There may have been tension between the two species, granted, but that's why it wasn't yet Star Trek, and that's why there was no Federation, and no Star Fleet. They tired to make a Star Trek series in a time before the Star Trek universe had begun.

The discontinuity between the Star Treks is a real problem, and is not merely "nitpicking". When you do not maintain consistency within a universe, it starts unraveling, and the fiction is spoiled, and frankly cannot even be taken seriously, as it does not abide by its own history and rules. It is clear that the original Star Trek universe could not have come from the Enterprise one, where Star trek elements are cherry picked out of time and place.

When the writers realized the series was failing, they attempted to recapture the audience with a novella (again). In my opinion, even this failed, and only the Paramount muscle was able to keep such a series alive for so many god-awful seasons.

So... What can this tell us? It tells us that there will never be another Star Trek again. In fact, there hasn't been a Star Trek since Next Generation, though some derivatives have been more enjoyable than others. Star Trek has aged well, and it has given all it is, in my view. It should be given a rest. I would be happy if there was never another Star Trek again.

Star Trek will never die. It will be there like Classical music and literature is there, even after hundreds of years. While, I am not suggesting Star Trek is quite on par with Mozart, I think it certainly is one of the great classics of television and TV science fiction, and will remain such, even after countless generations.

These new attempts at Star Trek are merely parodies. I say, make something new! Make something new that embodies the same spirit and values, but with fresh new ideas. If this generation's concept of the future, culturally and technologically is so different that you have to totally warp the story and look of the original series, then why make attach it to that series anyway? Why not create a whole new story, with completely different characters, free and unattached to the original?

This is like trying to make a modern romantic comedy using Romeo and Juliet and somehow making it seem like it is a "reboot" of the original. it is not. It is something else. But the answer is clear: This is for profit. the Ferengi that run Paramount know that the Star Trek name still carries some weight for many, even after the slander of the last few series. But be sure, whatever this is, good or bad, praised by Nimoy or not, it *will not* be Star Trek. It will be something pretending to be.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2008, 12:54 PM
 
So the new movie should have used colored buttons and plywood floors?

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2008, 01:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Gamoe View Post
...


(Note: not a serious response)
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: God's Country
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2008, 02:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Gamoe View Post
Enterprise... was boring. I greatly enjoy the original Star Trek even today, forty years after it was originally aired, for a less technologically-savvy and one can argue, more easily impressed audience. But the story was there, the humanity was there, the imagination was there, and that has endured.

Enterprise, on the other hand, not only completely contradicted the established Star Trek history, almost purposely and mockingly from episode # 1, but managed to come up with such boring stories, and such a humdrum way of telling them, that I felt genuinely bored-- something I had never felt before while watching anything with the Star Trek name to it, even DS9. That's when i knew something was really wrong.

In an attempt to make Star Trek more accessible or down-to-Earth, they made it mundane, even scrapping the wonderful instrumental music that has always introduced Star Trek for a catchy pop tune. Well intentioned perhaps, but a total failure to realize what Star Trek is about. I found it sad how the writers could not keep from habitually going back/forward to future-era tech (holodeck, cloaking device, etc.) to make a story. TOS never needed these, and yet they told good stories. The lack of creativity was awful.
See, I find it kind of interesting how they introduce future technologies. Sure, TOS didn't have the holodeck, but I thought it was kind of interesting to show Earth's first introduction to holodeck technology, even if they didn't adopt it themselves until much later.

I will grant you that the music is horrible. The theme song is girly and whiny and reminds me of a Phil Collins ballad written for a Disney flick. Don't get me wrong - there's a time and place for such music. It just doesn't belong in a Star Trek iteration.

The issues between the Vulcans and the humans only distanced the series from Star Trek. There may have been tension between the two species, granted, but that's why it wasn't yet Star Trek, and that's why there was no Federation, and no Star Fleet. They tired to make a Star Trek series in a time before the Star Trek universe had begun.
I think Enterprise gets back to the intent of Star Trek more than DS9 did. Because of the setup, though - no Federation, tensions between the Vulcans and Earth - I can see how it doesn't really seem quite as Trekky. It's more of a "how it all began" kind of thing.

The discontinuity between the Star Treks is a real problem, and is not merely "nitpicking". When you do not maintain consistency within a universe, it starts unraveling, and the fiction is spoiled, and frankly cannot even be taken seriously, as it does not abide by its own history and rules. It is clear that the original Star Trek universe could not have come from the Enterprise one, where Star trek elements are cherry picked out of time and place.
I don't know enough of Star Trek history to say whether or not there are glaring discontinuities between the rest of Trek and Enterprise, really. If it does create that many holes, though, I can agree that such plot devices are problematic, particularly for a holistic universe like Star Trek. It would be like if someone came along and wrote a sequel (or even prequel) to the Harry Potter series that resulted in changing key elements of the story arc. I just don't know how much Enterprise actually does that. In cases where they saw technology that wouldn't be adopted for hundreds of years, one could see that as "lost technology", where it was kind of pushed back and forgotten about until it was brought to Earth later down the timeline.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2008, 05:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Neil Patrick Janus.
I saw what you did there
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: BFE
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2008, 06:05 PM
 
I just watched the trailer (taken with a phone), on gizmodo and I thought it looked pretty good (except for the dorky first scene with the kid).
( Last edited by Eriamjh; Nov 17, 2008 at 07:07 PM. Reason: Effed up link.)

I'm a bird. I am the 1% (of pets).
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 12:01 AM
 
gizmodo now has " '66 seat mechanism rebuild" pictures?
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 10:50 AM
 
I've never seen that sort of thing on Gizmodo before... Oh wait! It was a goof, right!? Maybe you meant this?

In any case, Kirk "doing what it takes to get away" is perfectly legitimate. He's done that a lot. He's blown up HIS SHIP to get away, remember? I think, despite the "not the same as it was" feel, that this will be a fun movie. Note the "fun" part; I'm not saying it will be "great" or "artistic," just a big spectacle that's fun to go see.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 11:01 AM
 
Star Trek is never coming back the way it was. You'll have to accept that or continue to bitch about how it's "not like it was". It never will be.

Star Trek worked on so many levels, but some of it had to do with the time period in which it was released - the 60's.

A few points to make:

1) It was much different than any other science fiction show of its time except for early Lost In Space which tried to be serious sci-fi (until it was COMPLETELY ruined later on). Other shows just didn't cut it.
2) Trek pushed the boundaries of what was on TV at the time. A black woman? A RUSSIAN? For 1966 this was huge.Now that all those boundaries have been broken through, what's left? Gays? A ship full of gay people just for the sake of pushing boundaries isn't a good story.
3) Which is my last point - Star Trek had good STORIES. Who cares if it's tweaked a little bit? If it's a good STORY, then I'm on board.

That said, I hope they don't screw with what made Trek a good show. If they keep the spirit of the show intact, even with a little tweaking, I'll enjoy it.

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 11:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by starman View Post
2) Trek pushed the boundaries of what was on TV at the time. A black woman? A RUSSIAN? For 1966 this was huge.Now that all those boundaries have been broken through, what's left? Gays? A ship full of gay people just for the sake of pushing boundaries isn't a good story.
Hmm. I think you might be on to something here, actually. "Queer Eye for the Klingon Guy"?

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: The New Posts Button
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 12:17 PM
 
There are only two possible outcomes for this movie:

1. Trekkers hate it, but it is well received by the general public
2. Trekkers hate it, and it is not well received by the general public.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 12:19 PM
 
hi Dakar, how are you doing today? I miss our talks. Can't wait for our next chat.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 01:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by brassplayersrock² View Post
hi Dakar, how are you doing today? I miss our talks. Can't wait for our next chat.
I LOL'd

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 02:11 PM
 

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: BFE
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 07:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by brassplayersrock² View Post
gizmodo now has " '66 seat mechanism rebuild" pictures?
Oops! Wrong item in the paste buffer! Wassa matter, don't need to learn how to rebuild classic Lincoln seat mechanisms?

Thanks for the link to it on Apple! High Def so much better.
( Last edited by Eriamjh; Nov 17, 2008 at 07:14 PM. )

I'm a bird. I am the 1% (of pets).
     
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Polwaristan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 08:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by starman View Post
Thanks for the link.

The flick looks interesting.
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Feb 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 09:55 PM
 
That trailer actually doesn't look too bad. It'll definitely be different.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 10:42 PM
 
Why do people whine about continuity? The movie's plot is based on

 


Right there they could screw continuity and do the entire thing up as an alternate universe.
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 10:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
I just saw the action-packed trailer before Quantum of Solace. I am SO there! As my son put it, "I don't care if it's canon or not, I'm going to see it." Yes, it impressed me that much.

(By the way, QoS really kicked serious @ss! I'm going to have to rent Casino Royale now...)
I liked Quantum of Solace a lot, but I understand what Laminar is saying. Casino Royale was such a fantastic Bond movie, that QoS was just a little less. Still a very good flick, but Casino Royale was, IMO, the best Bond movie ever.
__________________________________________________

Play Food Fight! available free on the App Store! (NO DON'T... iOS7 broke it. I'll take it down soon. Bugger.)
Or how about a really weird (or stupid) game: Nesen Probe, it's also free.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2008, 12:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by goMac View Post
Why do people whine about continuity? The movie's plot is based on

 


Right there they could screw continuity and do the entire thing up as an alternate universe.
And THAT is my problem with it. Frickin' time travel is what ruined Star Trek. Time travel stories make for weak sauce. Time travel plotting always leads to deus ex machina and plot holes you can fly a Constitution class cruiser through.

Let me clarify what I mean by "ruined," though, because I want to make something clear: Star Trek always sucked. In the 60's, it was visionary and bold...and it sucked. In the 90's TNG was popular and fun...but it sucked. Everything after that just sucked at progressively more and more intense levels of suction, culminating in Enterprise, which was neither popular, nor bold. It was supposed to be a prequel, but they plotted and wrote the thing exactly like TNG, except without any of the solid ensemble casting that made that show half-watchable-on-occasion.

I grew up on Star Trek. I loved Star Trek. When I was a child, I spake as a Trekkie, I understood as a Trekkie, I thought as a Trekkie: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2008, 12:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by Helmling View Post
but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
And that is what makes old men cranky.

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2008, 12:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by starman View Post
And that is what makes old men cranky.
Actually, I didn't really put away childish things. But that doesn't make Star Trek suck any less.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2008, 02:12 AM
 
It makes me laugh when people say something sucks, but is amazingly popular for almost 50 years.

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2008, 03:00 AM
 
Amazingly popular among a certain niche, sure.

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2008, 03:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by Jawbone54 View Post
Seriously, I'm scared they're going to botch it up too, but this thread has made me realize that the whiniest, most nit-picky two groups of people are Mac fans and Star Trek fans.

Add the two together, and...
You've never met a Dr Who fan, have you?

for example, when they recreated the exterior of the tardis for the new show, they producers deliberately changed the dimensions of the windows on the police box from those on the old show. Why? Because they new it would provoke outrage in a certain section of fandom - which it did.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2008, 09:10 AM
 
it's funny to see people complain about a movie that isn't out yet.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Staffs, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2008, 01:07 PM
 
If they want to totally reboot Star Trek then they should enforce this rule : Time Travel is impossible.

There - at a stroke you've corrected the #1 thing that's wrong with TNG and everything after, and also made the lazy writers actually think up something original for a change.

Trek had a whole galaxy - hell, a universe - to play with. They ran out of space so quickly that they had to start dreaming up plots about time travel, and then alternate universes, and then time travel in alternate universes ! They should stick to reality a little more - there's plenty of amazing things in the real universe to write stories about.. :/
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: BFE
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2008, 01:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Gee4orce View Post
They ran out of space so quickly that they had to start dreaming up plots about time travel, and then alternate universes, and then time travel in alternate universes!
My sides are bustin'!

Yes, time travel is lame. It is as lame as any holodeck-gone-on-the-fritz episode (another TNG staple).

However, the Enterprise C episode is one of my favorites, though. I enjoying seeing Tasha (whom I dispised) going to her "death" once again.

I'm a bird. I am the 1% (of pets).
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2008, 01:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Helmling View Post
When I was a child, I spake as a Trekkie, I understood as a Trekkie, I thought as a Trekkie: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
Nice.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: The New Posts Button
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2008, 01:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Andrew Stephens View Post
You've never met a Dr Who fan, have you?

for example, when they recreated the exterior of the tardis for the new show, they producers deliberately changed the dimensions of the windows on the police box from those on the old show. Why? Because they new it would provoke outrage in a certain section of fandom - which it did.
Wait, I don't get it. They changed it only to spite old fans?
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2008, 02:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dakar V View Post
Wait, I don't get it. They changed it only to spite old fans?
Not to spite, just because they new certain sections of teh internetz would notice and go ballistic. As they did. It made for a few "interesting" forum threads.

It was more because the producers were fans, and they were playing with the fans (in a strange way).
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: The New Posts Button
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2008, 02:19 PM
 
If they did it was for the publicity, it makes complete sense.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2008, 02:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Helmling View Post
when I became a man, I put away childish things.
Like ferreting around with boobies, like babies do?
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2008, 07:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Gee4orce View Post
Trek had a whole galaxy - hell, a universe - to play with. They ran out of space so quickly that they had to start dreaming up plots about time travel, and then alternate universes, and then time travel in alternate universes ! They should stick to reality a little more - there's plenty of amazing things in the real universe to write stories about.. :/
Agreed. Nothing, and I mean nothing, ruins a fleshed out fictional universe quicker than introducing time travel. Why is this such a hard thing to stay away from for writers? JK Rowling, I'm looking at you.

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: T •
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2008, 08:27 PM
 
Other than the stupid time travel story I think everything about it LOOKS awesome. The battles look tight and for once the space shots more actually look real and believable as they have better scale and maneuverability.

So far the only thing that bothers me about the art direction is the stupid joysticks on every console on the bridge.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2008, 11:48 AM
 
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: T •
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2008, 12:53 PM
 
in the tailer you can see a starship that has no warp engines and a secondary hull on the top and bottom of the saucer section. It seems that each hull is different and one of them acts as the engine and the other the deflector. Has there ever been a starship that didn't have twin warp engines and just one giant tailpipe?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2008, 01:06 PM
 
In the tech manual from 1975, there have been many different kinds of starships that were never seen in the show.

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: New York, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2008, 01:18 PM
 
In TNG, there was a single warp nacelle ship in the wreckage of Wolf 359. It was a Freedom class starship according to what I researched when I noticed the Kelvin in the trailer.
Vandelay Industries
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2008, 01:36 PM
 
There's also the alternate future tri-nacelle Enterprise-D that appeared in the final TNG episode, "All Good Things..."

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2008, 02:58 PM
 
Those were called Dreadnoughts in the tech manual (1975).

This is the cover from a later version showing the dreadnought.


Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: T •
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2008, 04:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
There's also the alternate future tri-nacelle Enterprise-D that appeared in the final TNG episode, "All Good Things..."
Apparently in the Star Trek bible that rodenberry wrote said that starships ALWAYS need warp engines in pairs as that is how the technology works so many people hate that 3 nacelle enterprise.

If the one in the tailer looked like a warp engine I would be cool but it just looks like a big 747 engine.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2008, 08:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES View Post
Apparently in the Star Trek bible that rodenberry wrote said that starships ALWAYS need warp engines in pairs as that is how the technology works so many people hate that 3 nacelle enterprise.

If the one in the tailer looked like a warp engine I would be cool but it just looks like a big 747 engine.
OMFG! Listen to yourselves!


[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: T •
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2008, 08:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - View Post
OMFG! Listen to yourselves!

Well of course it is geeky, that is what star trek is all about.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2008, 08:37 PM
 
The Star Trek Legacy and the Star Trek Starfleet Command games have bunches of other ship classes. Starfleet Command would probably be closer to cannon than Legacy (in Legacy the dreadnaught had four nacelles).

Starfleet Command has all sorts of geeky stuff. One nacelle ships, two nacelle ships, three nacelle ships, carriers....
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2008, 10:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - View Post
OMFG! Listen to yourselves!

Dude, you posted in the Star Trek thread!!!

You won't catch me...




     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: T •
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2008, 07:27 PM
 
This is the ship in question:

     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2008, 07:29 PM
 
what's with the giant eye on top? (actual question)
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:11 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2014 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2