Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/
God, the first three pages are full of people who can't use their eyes. Reading on in the hopes of some sanity...Bounty wrote:Preliminary scaling work at TrekBBS based on the shuttleay suggests a 3000ft length, the same as was used in the article posted earlier. I might try a scaling based on the bridge window tomorrow.
Read selectively. The scaling is on page... six or seven or so. The one with, well actual screenshots as opposed to "but it doesn't feel like more than 1000 feet".Worlds Spanner wrote:God, the first three pages are full of people who can't use their eyes. Reading on in the hopes of some sanity...Bounty wrote:Preliminary scaling work at TrekBBS based on the shuttleay suggests a 3000ft length, the same as was used in the article posted earlier. I might try a scaling based on the bridge window tomorrow.
I almost forgot about that guy. What's his problem? Does he have a fanatical hard-on for the original continuity? Surely he should realize that he's fighting a hopeless battle here; the writers seem to have no intention of sticking to the original continuity beyond some homages and recycling of ideas. What's the point of this Quixotic struggle?Bounty wrote:Bernd Schneider lost it. He says that the new Enterprise is 300m long, more or less like the original, and therefore all scaling, interior and exterior shots showing it to be bigger, as well as the designers stating it is bigger, are "continuity errors".
He seems to be one of the people in the "reboots rape my childhood" crowd.Darth Wong wrote:I almost forgot about that guy. What's his problem? Does he have a fanatical hard-on for the original continuity? Surely he should realize that he's fighting a hopeless battle here; the writers seem to have no intention of sticking to the original continuity beyond some homages and recycling of ideas. What's the point of this Quixotic struggle?
Comedy gold.Obviously, he's proceeding from the assumption that TOS was "correct". Given that assumption, anything in the new film which deviates from TOS is "wrong".Bounty wrote:He can't seem to process any discrepancy between TOS and the movie. And not just the obvious stuff, he complains about the phasers looking wrong and the transporters making the wrong noise.
Holy heartbroken trekkie Batman.McC wrote:He seems to be one of the people in the "reboots rape my childhood" crowd.
They ... just ... don't ... get it. Still, comedy gold.Bernd Schieder wrote:The new movie with its lead ship, however, will probably damage Star Trek's continuity more fundamentally than Enterprise ever could.
Holy shit. Not only is it sad, but he's quibbling over which of two different universes is the 'alternate' one!Bernd Schieder wrote:Because of my respect for The Original Series and the fact that it has the much older rights I may choose to give the reboot and its starships, sets, props and uniforms a lower weight than the classic production design. In my view not the old Star Trek but the new one is an alternate reality. In my database there is only a place for one "real" Enterprise NCC-1701, and it will remain Matt Jefferies' design. The Enterprise always looked as it did in TOS until the ship was refurbished for TMP, and anything weird that happens on the new Enterprise in the new movie should be either a transitory deviation or should not occur at all in what I see as the main Trek timeline. I don't want myself to be spoiled by a mere fashionable new look and feel, regardless whether it comes as an explicit "reboot" or whether it is shamefully labeled as just another new timeline within the existing continuity.
He does get a little "It looks NOTHING LIKE TOS!!!" for a bit, but for the most part, it is a pretty solid review/critisim of the events in the movie. He even had the same idea as Stark in that Spock Prime, is not the Spock form TOS/TNG but from this completely separate timeline/parallel universe.Cpl Kendall wrote:Read Darkstars blog, they've apparently raped his childhood as well.
Seriously? Dude. How long have you been arguing with these same people? Of course they are clueless.Darth Wong wrote:Are these "they're ruining Star Trek" people totally clueless?
Not only that, but it the case of the Marvel movies, they are continuities that run concurrently with the main Marvel universe. That is Marvels stated position as they have given the 'movie universe' its own designation. Why in this specific case, Trekkies can't accept something like that, when they already have it (hellooo... the Mirror Universe), is sorta mind boggling.Franchise movies have been charting their own continuity over and over lately. Batman did it. X-Men did it. Iron Man did it. Spiderman did it. Just how slow-witted do these people have to be, not to see this coming? Or not to notice that these franchises have been strengthened by their respective reboots, not weakened by them?
Brevity is not his strong suitAnguirus wrote:Darkstar's bit hit on the logic holes that everyone's been pointing out, made the bog-standard "Apple Store" and "Ship's too big" noises (did someone else coin the term Monsterprise as well?), and then it got so long-winded that I couldn't finish.
It's actually not surprising; Star Trek has probably constituted a really big part of his life (after all, it's not as if he has much else). When normal people casually dismiss the importance of linkage with the older series, that's obviously not going to sit well with him.Of course, he really and truly doesn't understand that perfect continuity with the rest of Star Trek is barely relevant in the face of the fact that Star Trek has been utter dogshit for the past 15 years and needed a huge kick in the ass, continuity be damned.
The Narada herself supports the idea of huge commercial ships given that she was a mining vessel (likely designed to tear apart asteroids and even small moons for their minerals).Ryan Thunder wrote:Maybe there just wasn't all that much interstellar frieght to be had, so they haven't built larger ships for that purpose because there's no need?Darth Wong wrote:Question: will the new continuity reverse the bizarre trend established in earlier Star Treks where freighters are always tiny vessels compared to warships? Real freighters can be huge, particularly oil tankers.
Just a guess.
