star trek - What was the point of bringing Enterprise to the surface of a planet?

In the original timeline, I haven't seen a federation starship other than USS Voyager on the surface of a planet, whether it was capable of landing or not.

In Star Trek Into Darkness,

it was displayed that Enterprise was kept underwater on a planet.

My Question:

What was the point of bringing Enterprise to the surface, which enabled a couple of chances for violation of the Prime Directive? Why couldn't observations be done with Enterprise in orbit?

Answer

After decades of technobabble accreting, the Star Trek universe is surprisingly resilient to plot holes. Technobabble is the gaffa tape of scriptwriting, it can fix and hold anything together. Here is an "in-universe" explanation for the submerging:

In the event of the volcano erupting with a lot of ash, the dust of a Nibiru volcano and its electrostatic potential would cause ionic interference (1) with the confinement beam, leading to deadly pattern degradation in the transporter signal. Communication with crew on the ground would likewise be hampered.

Note that in the movie, Spock is at some point in the volcano but unable to be beamed out, due to interference (2). This shows that we are dealing with a particulary bad volcano transporter-wise. Wouldn't want the crew on the surface and the Enterprise in space if the volcano erupts and the material causing the interference spreads to the atmosphere. (We can here assume that Nibiru already suffers from Trinimbic interference (3) .)

When quizzed, screenwriter and producer Roberto Orci came up with a similar explanation on the spot (2), only adding that it's magnetic interference, not Trinimbic. (Dumbing it down for the journalist no doubt ;-) As an extra precaution by the producers, Scotty is questioning Kirk's decision on submerging

Comments

languages - Do we ever see written English in the Star Wars films?

In Empire Strikes Back , we see a transcription of what R2's beeps and bloops mean, but it's not English (sorry for the low quality, it's from the 2004 DVDs): I'd assume it's what Basic looks like when written, but is there some point in the the Star Wars films we see written English instead? (This sort of spun off from a discussion in How do people understand astromech droids? .) Answer At one point there was English but it has been phased out in subsequent versions of the films. Chris Gould at DVD Active did a comparison of all versions of each of the Star Wars films, and in his comparison of Episode 4 , there are a couple of screenshots showing how the power gauge for the Death Star tractor beam was changed. I imagine there are probably more to be found in his other comparisons but I haven't got around to reading those yet.

Was the "pure soul" of Harry's what had really hurt Voldemort?

In the Order of the Phoenix, Voldemort possesses Harry, and it hurts. Greatly. I think that Dumbledore explained that it was because Voldemort's rotten soul was incapable of assimilating Harry's pure soul, that Voldemort didn't understand the love and friendship etc that Harry has in his heart. But, I think it was a lie. Remember that in Deathly Hallows, while looking for information regarding Horcruxes, it is discovered that it is in fact possible to merge a soul fragment back, but that the process was extremely painful. Now then, if Voldemort tried to possess Harry, and Harry had a fragment of Voldemort's soul, I think that it could have been the true cause of Voldemort's pain: the fact of having his soul so close of another fragment. I think that Dumbledore knew that fact, but had to lie to Harry because it was inappropriate to let him know that he had one of Voldemort's soul fragments at the moment. Is that right? Or was it truly the pure soul of Harry's...

star wars - What "exactly" happens when someone turns to the Dark Side?

When I saw the original Star Wars saga as a kid, the concept of the Dark Side imprinted in me was quite simple. You did a bad thing, so you're a bad person so you go to the Dark Side and keep doing bad things. Now, obviously this doesn't hold true in reality. In my mind it is perfectly reasonable for Luke to kill the Emperor and Vader and then just flee the Death Star and rejoin the Alliance. After all they are at war, those are enemy officers that have captured him and are taunting him by threatening with death of all loved ones and the whole operation was intended to kill the Emperor anyway. The same would hold true for Anakin. He could have killed Mace Windu to save the Chancellor and Padme but that doesn't mean he's going to then go mad and kill all Jedis including children. It doesn't add up from a merely psychological point of view. He had a set of objectives and that made him want to keep the Chancellor alive (quite valid by the way, Mace Windu is quite clums...

star trek - Warning regarding forward saucer section in Nemesis?

In Star Trek: Nemesis , just before the Enterprise rams into the Scimitar, Picard sends a text message from his captain's chair arm pad to Troi — who is manning the helm in lieu of the crewman who was just blown out through what was once the view screen — indicating that she should put full impulse on standby. (Literally, if you watch the scene closely, Troi's console prefaces the order with "TXT MSG" !) My question is: Did Picard also somehow warn crew members in the forward saucer section about what was about to happen? The ramming of the Scimitar was a heat of the moment decision. Considering that he also resorted to calling the auto-destruct sequence shortly after (which ended up being offline), he probably was of the mindset that any losses would be acceptable in order to hault Shinzon's march to Earth. Still, I'm curious. Answer The original script indicates that he called for the crew to " brace for impact ". Whether that call (or the comma...

Blog

Search This Blog