Orci's comment about the Enterprise being built in space shows he knows nothing really about science...whter the ship can warp space is irrelevant... it's TOO HEAVY...

Exactly, Azrael! I mean, it's SCIENCE Fiction! There is at least a grain of truth about everything in Star Trek. Besides, the original dedication plaque says that the Enterprise (along with almost all starships for that matter) was built in the Mars Planeticia (sp?) Shipyards. Kirk may have LIVED in Iowa, but they surely wouldn't have to have the Enterprise BUILT in Iowa. I'm trying to be optimistic, but the more I hear, the more I worry about what I'm going to see.

The more I see this, the more I wonder how big a fans of Star Trek these people really are. A swordfight for Sulu would not be one of my top 20 moments nor do I honestly know anyone whose list it would be on.

I do not mind them re-imagining canon but one should do so with a certain responsibility. It may be one reason the producers and Shatner never came to a deal for a cameo: they do not want the real Kirk (whether you like him or hate him) messing with the re-imagined Kirk.

His whole point about where the Enterprise was built is ridiculous. Aside from the fact that it blows canon out of the water, a huge heavy ship like that would never be built on Earth if you already have the capability to construct such things in space (The Enterprise was built at the San Francisco Ship Yards in Earth orbit). It just doesn’t make sense.

Well, if one takes a look at Star Trek canon it contradicts itself constantly. Yeah, we all know the TOS Enterprise was built near Mars, but this movie is a reboot. If it helps you deal, then just think of it as an alternate universe. It is science FICTION after all - just wait and see it and then decide if you enjoyed it without over thinking it. Most true science fiction aficionados would argue that warp drive is fantasy and not science fiction anyway. And as for the ship not being able to built on Earth because of gravity, you do realize that giant ocean liners are built on land and then launched into the water right? If we can some of those massive things without the support they'll get from water we can certainly built the Enterprise on land - especially since Star Trek seems to have conquered the whole gravity thing with technology anyhow - they do manage to turn it on, on spaceships or turn it off with those cargo gizmos you see them moving heavy stuff around with.

You guys must not know too much since the Utopia Planitia yards at Mars were not built at the time of TOS. Enterprise was built in EARTH orbit at San Francisco Fleet Yards. The Enterprise-D was built at Mars.

Um, yeah. Do a google or YouTube search for Star Trek canon goofs. There are tons and tons of them. Some guy even tookt he time to make a few TEN MINUTE montages of Star Trek continuity/canon goofs.

So get over yourself, fanbuys.

Star Trek is notorious with messing with continuity in its cannon. (Remember Khan and Chekov, for one ? ) In TOS, Kirk confessed to McCoy in Shore Leave that he was at first very serious then came out of his shell. I have no problem with Kirk getting into bar fights and being reckless. That is more in line actually with the Kirk we all know and love. I don't have a big issue with the Enterprise being built on Earth. All I really care about are the characters. Don't change them radically and I'll be on board. This is JJ Abrams Star Trek now. The franchise can survive this interpretation. The TOS is not going anywhere. The DVD's will always be here.

I'm with the first two commenters, though for different reasons. Why would you assemble a *rounded* spaceframe that would eventually fall over if *tipped the wrong way* on Earth? Why build all the extra scaffolding necessary to support something THAT heavy - though I'm sure very-strong metals are more available in the future so it's easier to get ahold of scaffolding, it's a waste! Why involve all the cranes when space has no air friction, no resistance? Why would you waste energy hauling HUGE pieces of hull around on cranes and stuff when you can just sortof nudge it into place using two guys in an astronaut suit? Why expend all the ship's power to "lift off" when the ship is MEANT to be a spacefaring vessel?

We live in a time where energy conservation is important, and even if they've licked the energy crisis in 22-whatever, this seems like a gargantuan waste of energy for such a forward-thinking organization as the Federation (or UESPA or whatever Orci plans on calling it). The goal in proper engineering is to build a maximum amount of stuff for the least amount of energy.

Every series and movie so far has messed with canon a little bit (including the biggest offender, "Enterprise"). However, they are completely re-writing it with this move. Now, for a reboot of the series, that is expected. However, it seems like they want this movie to be in the same continuity as the others, and it is clearly not going to be. Maybe I'm wrong? I don't know. Either way, I'm going to be in the theatre opening day! However, the original reasoning Orci gave for the ship being built on Earth is dumb. Yes, a ship that powerful could probably lift off from Earth and get into orbit quite easily, but wouldn't it make more sense to just build it in space from the start?

Oh, and thanks to EvilPumpkin, I now know ocean liners are built on Earth! Thanks for the heads up, and the retarded comparison!

DarkKnight said much of everything i am going to say but since i worked all this time on it, im not erasing a damn thing.

how much resources would Starfleet have to use up to crane all the materials around the scaffolding, coordinate the lift off, and the fuel (whatever fuel it may be) needed to launch the equivalent of 4 ocean liners (saucier, main body, left nasal, and right nasal) from ground level to space? and compared to assembling everything in weightlessness with barely a need for a crane, in space where it's going to stay for the *rest* of its usage minus the expenditure of all the fuel required for lift into space.

and the fact that canon breaks have occurred in the past by others should not give cart blanch to anyone else to break canon. i would expect them to be MORE careful of it. not to use it as an excuse. if that is the case, that is laziness on their part.

What part of Science Fiction do you people not understand? It is all fake, so who cares how and where they made the ship! If you are that upset, get a life and don't watch, or you could get over it and just enjoy the movie.

I do hope though that they will find a way to cast Wesly Crusher. They will need someone to fix their problems at the end of the movie.

DarkKnight and budgerhero hit the nail on the head. Brilliantly said, guys.

First off I am completely sorry to have even bothered commenting on any post here. The rudeness of some of you is totally astounding. Also, I was in error about the NCC-1701 being built on in the Mars shipyards. I have done my research and stand corrected. I guess I just didn't really care all that much though I've watched every episode of every series and paid to see every movie in the theaters. I suppose I just have a life that needs attending to instead of worrying about such trivial things as Star Trek canon. I still intend to give this movie a shot in the hopes that it will draw new fans to the Star Trek universe instead of the usual bunch of sanctimonious twits that argue about minutiae. If not, then Star Trek is dead.

Oh, and ardsheal, my comparison to large ships being built on land was to offer a comparison to show that a large vessel can indeed be built under the strains of gravity and moved. I stand by the comparison. Also, I did not say that ocean liners were built on Earth as that is obvious. I said "on land". If you're going to question my intelligence with an offensive term at least quote me right.

Feel free to bash me at will and anonymously as this is my last post to this place.

I dont really care where the ship is being constructed or Kirk got into bar fights, well so did Picard. I just want this movie to be good and not stupid. After going through the disappointments of Indy 4 and Star Wars prequel crap, I want this new star trek movie to kick ass and show Lucas how to make better stories.

It's simple. It's being built in Iowa because of union rules and as part of a pork-barrel earmark arranged by Iowa's Senator.

I agree with NotHere. If it wasn't for Obama getting elected, the last jobs in America wouldn't have moved to Iowa causing all ocean and space ships to be developed there.

Sulu for President in 2012!

Cowboys and Aliens sounds a lot like Firefly.

I don't give a rats patuty about canon. I've been a huge Trek fan for 33 years. My life hasn't revolved around Trek since I was about 12. Bust up canon. Make new huge, exciting stories. Character and action rules! Canon drools.

Look, if the technology exists that allows an object to travel multiple times faster than the speed of light (Einstein believed this to be impossible), then the technology of the time must also have a way to counter gravity, just as it has the way to synthesize it in space without the use of rotation...so "liftoff" is of little consequence, as would be balancing the craft once that technology is in place and running within the hull of the ship.
...And why should it matter if they change the story? Improve upon it. If they're not changing anything, then why "re-film" it? Sci-Fi already remastered the original episodes. This is a re-imagination of the franchise. It's new, but involves the old characters. I look at it as refreshing. Without it, you'd have no choice but to keep watching those same old episodes that have been around for so many years without change. I'm certainly ready for some refreshing change and updates.

I'm a huge fan of Star Trek, but over the last few years I fell it has grown stale. Canon is coo and all, but I want a movie that entertains me. I'm looking forward to this movie for what it is...a fresh look at Star Trek from different eyes. I'll save my judgements until after I've seen the movie.

P.S. His response to why Enterprise was built on Earth was the best non-answer I've seen in a while.

My thought was that they would build the ship on earth, then use transporters to beam it out into space to do the final assembly.

The plaque on the original enterprise just says san francisco thats it. Also the Enterprise could have been built in Iowa and launched in San Francisco. It was also never said on the series that it was built in space, however it was in the books which are not considered canon.

We're scifi fans. Geeks, if you will. We like things to make sense. Both in story and in science. And when something contradicts what we've been told before, it itches at our brain until it makes sense. Why do you think we like Spock so much. HE IS LOGICAL! The ears are nice, and the eye brows are cool. But we love his logic. and plus i think there is a loyalty to Gene Roddenberry (it is his story) and the writers in the 60's. A lot of them changed people's life in some way. You can call it corny, but it's true. It's tandem amount to going up to someone and telling them that parts of their childhood are a lie. They won't believe you, and they'll be a little insulted. If you haven't noticed yet, that's how much we love this show/story. Pardon our defensiveness.

And what's with all this "trek is dying" crud. I want to see the numbers showing me that Star Trek conventions have slowed down by 50% before I even consider it. Maybe the movie/TV shows have slowed down (did you think it would go full steam ahead for all eternity?). And sometimes these things need a break. People get tired of it, writers need time away from it. It ~ happens. I'm sure we'd all love Buffy to fight vampires for all time, and she'd never die ever. But then there might not be Dr. Horrible or Dollhouse or Firefly. One human being can only fulfill so many different fan expectations in one lifetime. One can only take so much of something, whatever that is, before it runs out, or you become sick of it. Even water can be poisonous in extreme amounts.

Evilpumpkin, thought your post was valid. And to the rest of you trekkies, a Stardestroyer could sooooooo destroy the puny enterprise. Have fun boys.

Did anyone think about how difficult it would be to build a ship that size in spacesuits? It seems that building it on the Earth would take much less time. Also, wouldn't all the interior equipment be affected by the extreme cold of space (close to absolute zero)?

I am probably wrong since I don't obsess over canon, but has a complete ship being built in spacedock ever been shown on-screen. I don't think the refit Enterprise and repairs count since it was not completely built from nothing.

I don't really care as long as the movie is good.

My guess is that they have the Enterprise being built on Earth so they can have the scene we see in the trailer of Kirk looking at the ship being built. It is a dramatic device that serves the story they are trying to tell.

That kid of break with canon doesn't bother. I only get upset if it is obvious someone didn't do their research or didn't care.

This talkback does nothing but lend credence to the public perception of Trekkies as losers obsessed with trivial nonsense.

Regarding why Enterprise would be built on Earth rather than in orbit, we can use our own imaginations instead of co-opting those of Hollywood writers and bitching when theirs doesn't quite suit us.

BTW, is it just me or does this article's accompanying pic look like they cast Rod Blagojevich as McCoy?

Perhaps it might be a safety issue for the given period (deadly small-scale space debris from some battle or accident makes space walking too dangerous until it de-orbits and burns in the atmosphere or is otherwise cleaned up by the Federation's equivalent of adopt-a-highway/community service/chain-gang ).

And maybe it boils down to that. When I go to watch anything Star Trek, I go for intelligent writing and science fiction I can chew on. Special effects are ancillary or only not really important. It isn't really entertainment for me. It's enrichment. If I want to be entertained, I'll watch a superhero movie or any special effect banaza. But I expect Star Trek to make me think. To remind me why I started watching it and loved it. But the trailer doesn't show me this. All the trailer shows me it that there will be great, actiony special effects. Oh and sexy stuff too. And fighting. I have watched the trailer over and over, and still have no idea what the story is about. Not even by a little. So does that mean that they are trying to sell this movie on action, sex, and violence? Yeah, those things are in trek. Buy they are secondary. That trailer acts like they are the most important part. It acts like that is why you watch a Star Trek movie. And that may be the case for some parts of the population. But as a normal movie person, beyond trek, I am not going to see a movie simply because it looks cool. I know better then to judge by pretty looks alone. MANY movies have looked very actiony and had gorgeous special effects in the trailer. The trailers were exciting and cool. Then the movie came out, and the story was uninspirational. Even the cool effects didn't save them. Oooohh, how the Star Wars fans cheered when the Ep.1 trailer appeared. But now, their complaints about it's story and over use of CGI are legendary. They're never going to let go of that anger.

And you're right. I don't know that the movie is good or bad. An action fest or a feast for the mind. But I have looked at all the promotion material, and I am scared. I am trying not to be judgmental. But hearing about random Sulu sword fights, super massive space ships being build on a planet, and so many other contradictory stuff scares me that they are changing the story I love. Making it unfamiliar and confusing. How do you enjoy something like that? If you're not a trekkie, you can watch the movie no matter what it is, no matter how it comes out. And as long as it is fun and looks cool, you can leave the cinema happy. But if it comes out non-canon and confusing, we trekkies leave unhappy, confused, stilted, and wondering "what just happened?" That is what I am afraid of. They make an actiony movie that amuses non-trek people, and put the Star Trek label on it to lure trekkies. I don't know what the movie is like, but I am scared of what I HAVE seen.

As a non trekkie i'm going to risk a few comments, so please be nice.
budgethero i think your concerns are valid but keep in mind that J.J Abrams is not a fool and knows that a sizable portion of the movies take will come from trekkies going back for repeat viewings. The sulu sword fight instead of being a 10 min action scene might just be a glimpse for those in the know. The trailer (hopefully) was cut to show people like me that the movie wasn't just for trekkies, also (please don't kill me) the one time i have delved into the trek universe, i was brought in by Scott Bakula and stuck it out for a season and a half or so but am sorry to say it was kinda boring and a little sex and violence doesn't have to take away from what you guys love about star trek.

P.S love your work NotHere

And I guess what I'm saying is as a trek fan, I'm worried. I have deep, deep, rooted emotions in this show, and when someone mangles this story as it SEEMS to me from the promotional material, you're mangling my emotions tied to trek. And no one likes their emotions messed with. If this movie is no more than a summer thrill ride, and excuse for an action movie, I'd feel used. I'd feel like someone took my favorite endless-field with an amazing view of the sky and clouds and paved it and put a plaza there. Changing the story a little isn't a minor thing for me. It's major because my emotions rooted to the story are major.

If they make a trailer that shows that this is as deep a story as one could expect from Star Trek, I might consider it worthy of the name it has. But all I've seen so far just does not suggest much more than a summer thrill ride. All I guess I'm asking is to be shown something I can believe in.

For all of it's problems (and I am as surprised as any), this movie is here and now...Perhaps it will simply make us wish that it was never made in the first place, (it won't be the first one if it is). We will know later this year with certainty, by that time it will either be forgotton or another pleasent memory, one to be collected or not. At the very least it will prove that the Trek universe still has the community behind it, still a powerhouse in the Sci Fi industry. And still worth throwing new idea's at, remaining a challenge to please the many, rather than the one.

For years I've mused on the possibility of an Enterprise encounter with the Tholians. Here's a rather mysterious, intriguing, somewhat hostile race that nobody knows anything about that could be incorporated into a movie with a completely new palette of ideas. I mean c'mon ,do we really need to keep exploring the Klingons, Borg, etc. ad nauseum? Exploring a little-known alien from TOS seems like a strong example of the rebooted old theme element that everyone is buzzing about regarding ST 11.