Star Trek Into Darkness - Part 4

[Octoberist]

Originally Posted by DKDetective

If your memory is correct, then the writers just made that up. Iowa has no history of naval shipbuilding. It is literally the stupidest place to have a naval shipyard. It is as far away from the coast and, thus, the major industrial centers of the Eastern and Western seaboards as you can get in the Continental US. US Navy ships are built in places like Maine, New York and Connecticut - coastal ports near large urban manufacturing centers. Sorry, but Abrams and gang are full of BS. They did it for plot convenience.

Your frustrations brings me happiness for some odd reason.

[theShape]

Originally Posted by Octoberist

Your frustrations brings me happiness for some odd reason.

Me too.

[Doc Ock]

Not gonna lie...I smiled.

[DKDetective]

Glad I entertained you folks. I'm not actually frustrated about it. Just thought people should know that the writers' excuse for having the shipyard in Iowa was completely made up. I think it's ironic that they thought they had to justify it and that they made up a lie to explain it.

[Smegger56]

Originally Posted by DKDetective

Glad I entertained you folks. I'm not actually frustrated about it. Just thought people should know that the writers' excuse for having the shipyard in Iowa was completely made up. I think it's ironic that they thought they had to justify it and that they made up a lie to explain it.

Completely made up? Like the whole film/universe? lol

I don't care about the change of where and how the ship was built. It fit the film and was visually evocative.

[Thundercrack85]

Originally Posted by Brian Braddock

If memory serves, they said in the commentary on the DVD for the last movie that it was built in Iowa as a reference to the long standing tradition of building naval ships there.

Iowa is a landlocked state.

It's just lazy writing to get Kirk to see the Enterprise being built. It's all awfully convenient to have the Enterprise, and its future crew in the state Kirk is from. Even though logically, you would build a starship in space (which is what we usually see in Trek).

I'd say that's the laziest writing in a Trek film since "we're the only ship in range" in Generations.

[Chris B]

Obviously its best not to read too much into it out of context, but the TV spot did seem to suggest that Cumberbatch would be an augment during that one line.

[roach]

Originally Posted by Thundercrack85

Iowa is a landlocked state.

It's just lazy writing to get Kirk to see the Enterprise being built. It's all awfully convenient to have the Enterprise, and its future crew in the state Kirk is from. Even though logically, you would build a starship in space (which is what we usually see in Trek).

I'd say that's the laziest writing in a Trek film since "we're the only ship in range" in Generations.

Isnt the point of a reboot is to do things different from TOS.

[Thundercrack85]

These are the writers of the Transformers movie, so maybe they did actually think Iowa was on the Eastern seaboard. Geography isn't exactly their strong suit (Revenge of the Fallen, anyone?).

[Thundercrack85]

Originally Posted by roach

Isnt the point of a reboot is to do things different from TOS.

Stop defending shoddy writing.

[Smegger56]

Originally Posted by Thundercrack85

Stop defending shoddy writing.

Why's it shoddy? Is it convenient? Yeah. But it's a two hour action movie, trying to get through an 'origin' story and at the same time bing visually impressive.

[Smegger56]

Originally Posted by Thundercrack85

These are the writers of the Transformers movie, so maybe they did actually think Iowa was on the Eastern seaboard. Geography isn't exactly their strong suit (Revenge of the Fallen, anyone?).

And John Logan is an acadamy nominated writer who wrote Nemesis.

[Thundercrack85]

Originally Posted by Smegger56

Why's it shoddy? Is it convenient? Yeah. But it's a two hour action movie, trying to get through an 'origin' story and at the same time bing visually impressive.

Actually, they could have just had Kirk be in San Francisco (it's a big city). I could buy a starship being built there, and it would make sense for the cadets to visit, since its close to the academy.

See, how hard was that?

[Smegger56]

Originally Posted by Thundercrack85

Actually, they could have just had Kirk be in San Francisco (it's a big city). I could buy a starship being built there, and it would make sense for the cadets to visit, since its close to the academy.

See, how hard was that?

It's a crowded city. Iowa is a place that is wide open, plenty of space. If anything goes wrong, not many people near by. I can buy that just as much.

Oh, and it's a 'spaceship'. So they can build it where they want. Space would be ideal, but the visual of the film is powerful. Cracking stuff IMO.

[Thundercrack85]

Originally Posted by Smegger56

It's a crowded city. Iowa is a place that is wide open, plenty of space. If anything goes wrong, not many people near by. I can buy that just as much.

Oh, and it's a 'spaceship'. If it was sailing ship, you'd have a point.

A starship, which can submerse like a submarine, actually. And if that's your thing, build it right outside the city limits. I guess they can test that feature in Iowa, with its rich naval tradition. In Riverside, no less.

Really should just build it in space, but if you have to have the shot of Kirk looking at it (which I agree, is cool), maybe in a less contrived location than his hometown.

Anyway, I don't think we're going to reach agreement on this, or anything else, so, I'll move on.

[Smegger56]

Originally Posted by Thundercrack85

A starship, which can submerse like a submarine, actually. And if that's your thing, build it right outside the city limits. I guess they can test that feature in Iowa, with its rich naval tradition. In Riverside, no less.

Really should just build it in space, but if you have to have the shot of Kirk looking at it (which I agree, is cool), maybe in a less contrived location than his hometown.

Anyway, I don't think we're going to reach agreement on this, or anything else, so, I'll move on.

I agree with the part in bold. But I must reply.

I don't get why it's even such a big issue. If anything, my big problem with the 09 film is the use of the singularity. What is it. A black hole? A worm hole? It tears ships up, but it sends them through time? How does it work? For me, that is a massive issue in the film. But everything else pretty much holds up. The characters are fun and interesting, the action is excellent. Even the revenge story is a decent for the adventure to run along.

We keep coming to this 'iowa navel tradition', which the creative team gave as the reason for it being there (didn't know that). Well, silly them. But for the purpose of getting this version of Kirk to join starfleet, they put it there. I can deal with that. It's Kirks Journey.

But it in San Fran, Kirk doesn't join Starfleet, as in this timeline, he took a different path to Kirk prime.

[Parker Wayne]

I'm just going to say what most people are thinking about the Enterprise being built in Iowa: Who gives a f**k?

[Smegger56]

Originally Posted by Parker Wayne

I'm just going to say what most people are thinking about the Enterprise being built in Iowa: Who gives a f**k?

[Pink Ranger]

Originally Posted by DKDetective

If your memory is correct, then the writers just made that up. Iowa has no history of naval shipbuilding. It is literally the stupidest place to have a naval shipyard. It is as far away from the coast and, thus, the major industrial centers of the Eastern and Western seaboards as you can get in the Continental US. US Navy ships are built in places like Maine, New York and Connecticut - coastal ports near large urban manufacturing centers. Sorry, but Abrams and gang are full of BS. They did it for plot convenience.

Originally Posted by Thundercrack85

Iowa is a landlocked state.

It's just lazy writing to get Kirk to see the Enterprise being built. It's all awfully convenient to have the Enterprise, and its future crew in the state Kirk is from. Even though logically, you would build a starship in space (which is what we usually see in Trek).

I'd say that's the laziest writing in a Trek film since "we're the only ship in range" in Generations.

Remember, this is a future where humanity has the technology to turn solid matter into energy, and instanteously transmit it from one location to another. Logistics, cargo transportation and process engineering as we understand it have no meaning with this technology in play.

Not that I'm defending Abrams, but it kind of makes sense that if traditional logistics is not a factor, then having a wide open, flat space becomes more important for a project of that scale.

[DKDetective]

Originally Posted by Pink Ranger

Remember, this is a future where humanity has the technology to turn solid matter into energy, and instanteously transmit it from one location to another. Logistics, cargo transportation and process engineering as we understand it have no meaning with this technology in play.

Not that I'm defending Abrams, but it kind of makes sense that if traditional logistics is not a factor, then having a wide open, flat space becomes more important for a project of that scale.

Re-read my post, I never said any of that mattered for the construction of the Enterprise. Of course none of it matters. I was just arguing that the writers' claims on the commentary that they put the shipyard in Iowa because it has a rich shipbuilding tradition in real life is completely made up. I just thought it ridiculous that they thought they needed to lie about that and that was what they came up with.

[redhawk23]

Originally Posted by Pink Ranger

Remember, this is a future where humanity has the technology to turn solid matter into energy, and instanteously transmit it from one location to another. Logistics, cargo transportation and process engineering as we understand it have no meaning with this technology in play.

Not that I'm defending Abrams, but it kind of makes sense that if traditional logistics is not a factor, then having a wide open, flat space becomes more important for a project of that scale.

Plus they were mining something in Iowa, hence the cliffs.


...

Yeah trek Iowa's kind of ridiculous.

[redhawk23]

With Abrams still "committed to producing" a third film, I wouldn't mind if they brought in a new director.

It would be sweet to have something for the 2016 anniversary, skyfall style.

Or a new show. That would be tops.

[roach]

Originally Posted by Thundercrack85

Stop defending shoddy writing.

Thats not shoddy writing. It's just different from what we have seen in the other series.

[Silvermoon]

Okay, I fully acknowledge I could be misremembering, but I thought it was mentioned somewhere (my sincerest apologies for not having a source, I want to say it was an article) that story-wise the shipyard being in Iowa was supposed to be in tribute to George Kirk and what he did on the Kelvin? Or am I remembering wrong?

[Rowsdower!]

Sorry... why are people upset that the shipyard was in Iowa? Who gives a f***?