I am however a moderator on the forum, and I despise these mob-rule threads, as they are always poison for the forum, so sadly I have to be involved, and bring some balance (if with a good chunk of sarcasm, heck there has to be something in it for me!) Not sure why you're identifying with the fanbois, but that's your choice.
Hmm you know, I'm sorry, I phrased that more harshly than I had intended. I'm not trying to be insulting, I just think your approach is going to cause you some discomfort. (i.e. a bunch of blah-blah-blah from the people you don't want to hear from.)
Which is precisely what fanboi arguments look like too, hence the irony I was more complaining about the internets trend for 'this is the correct opinion'. As I have already stated, I'm happy for people not to like something, it's when they tell other people what to think. (and that is a worrying trend which has spread outside of 'nerd' culture). I didn't claim it was a masterpiece either, I just really liked it, and I don't like being told I shouldn't. As you say, that's contrarianism. I didn't have a word for it before, but yes, that's exactly what it's a form of! it's that highly annoying Hipster-esque counter culture apathy, (Hipster, another annoying negative label) which gets me down.
Well I'll let you all get back to your 'we hate JJ' club
Small Nitpick: Contrarianism is liking something most people don't in an attempt to sound more sophisticated. Functionally it's similar to what you describe, but the key difference is that it's not imposing your preferences on anybody else. If that worked, you'd no longer be 'cool'!
I have a friend just like that 'that's popular, so I therefore don't like it' yes it came off as somewhat patronising, but will let you off, as I probably was being too
I saw this movie once in theaters, but I'm still gonna order the 3-disc combo pack on or around September 10th (it's release date) because I like it for the visual effects and Zachary Quinto.
AMD Ryzen 9 5900X Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB 1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD 32 GB RAM Windows 11 Pro
Most Trek fans, well, most of the longtime Trek fans whose devotion goes back say, to the 80's or earlier, want their Trek to be static, unchanging and preserved forever in stasis. This is the attitude of most of the people who worked on the later Trek series which is why they are so lifeless. (Take Enterprise, for example - I've seen more life at Madame Tussauds')
The fans who make Trek fan-films and fan-series like Phase II, they are the most loathesome of these traditionalists who want Trek to be locked into a perpetual cycle of bland characterisation, boring, dated visuals and slavish preservation of a long vanished and primitive era of television.
I really love JJ's take on Star Trek - he's got to the REAL core of Trek, that it should be exciting, energetic and entertaining. It is the future afterall, and it is, literally, a bright, dynamic place. (hence the lens flares, which are just the best thing ever IMO)
I also really like that it gets up the noses of the traditionalists and pisses all over their incorrect view of what Trek ought to be. That's a wonderful bonus.
See I don't mind if someone dosnt like the film, what I don't like is when they infere there is something wrong with anyone that did enjoy it, like we were were too stupid to see the flaws that were so obvious for them.
Yup precisely biotech, they presume we're not well aware of the flaws. I'll happily watch comedy slating of things I do like, they are often funnier than things you don't (because it's like shooting fish in a barrel) because it's poking fun at yourself for liking them
I just watched the film out of curiosity (nothing but that) and I feel somewhat violated.
Seriously, the movie left a rather distasteful aftermath in my mouth.
The acting and SFX were ok, but the story, the characters themselves, etc... the amount of dumbing down featured is beyond stupid.
I also cringed at some of their archaic technology. Sigh... the amount of stupidity and lack of critical thinking permeates this film.
Its no wonder I can no longer stomach virtually any scifi anymore. I cannot even 'enjoy' it as 'mindless entertainment' because I need my 'entertainment' to be mentally stimulating and prompt me to think (something which TNG and Voyager managed on several occasions - DS9, not really).
The latest science in the real world (which is 60 to 100 years ahead of anything in practice), what is realistically achievable when you remove the profit motive and money in general (by using state of the art methods of production which are decades ahead of the ones presently used, and superior synthetic materials that can be made sustainably in abundance), all of it could be portrayed in these movies to illustrate a better world of tomorrow, and instead, its: 'action, action, bang, bang, explosion, nudity, sex' - mindless indeed.
I realize they wanted to go with a 'darker' vision, but frankly, it's beyond stupid.
Also this entire notion of a 'militarized SF' is an idiotic one. What... did they suddenly throw away 200 years of social change, critical thinking and technological evolution to behave even worse than some people today just because of 'Nero'?
Upgrade your technology and implement necessary solutions so you can be 'better prepared' for potential problems, but reverting to 'savagery' is the dumbest move you can take - I mean hello, WWI, II and III in their history books (among other things).
Only in Hollywood would they do such a thing.
And the amount of idiotic cultural myths that people cling to today are still present in the supposed future.
Hollywood needs a heavy dose of relevant general education, critical thinking, problem solving and how to arrive at decisions instead of 'making' them (actually, the whole globe needs this) - but then again, they don't see it as 'profitable'.
Good thing I stopped watching TV 10 years ago. I rarely watch movies (only if they pique my interest), and I was as I mentioned curious about what they did with Trek.
As I theorized, it was really no better than the one with Nero (seriously, as an action flick, even 'Nemesis' was a lot better on every level).
Rogue captains, commodores and admirals from starfleet where not exactly uncommon before this film came out.
Actually, no, I wasn't.
But even original Star Trek series had a certain indication of solving problems through science and critical thinking, not just with large explosions all the time.
Rogue commodores, captains and admirals were not done all the time, and it was mainly subtle.
They turned the entire thing into a early 21st century in space fiasco.
Seriously, in this movie, where the heck were SF ships, automated support drones with tractor beams, or emergency mass transporter hubs?
You have 2 large vessels tumbling down relatively slowly towards Earth from the general area of the moon, with 0 (fully operational) ships to assist with tractor beams and ... oh I don't know, prevent a big black dreadnaught from smashing into the water causing heavy damage in the process and a number of deaths?
Where did that Earth starbase vanish to exactly?
Or what about sensors which are subspace based technology (capable of detecting ships traveling many times the speed of light, not to mention record extremely detailed data in plethora of galactic phenomena that are orders of magnitude more severe than simple erupting Volcanoes) and yet somehow they miss 2 very damaged SF ships heading towards Earth (and who knows how much time passed while the Dreadnaught was actually attacking the Enterprise near the moon).
As for militarized SF... actually, in TOS it was not exactly on the heavy side of that (mainly when the Klingons were there).
My point is that these 'cliches' are worn out. Coupled with really heavy plot holes you can literally drive a starship through.
That guy on that Dreadnaught that caught Scotty... I mean seriously... he exhibited an education level of an infant, pointing a gun at a person that supposedly was in the area without authorization, and has a whole conversation played out on a communicator that clearly indicates a breach (and seriously, can't you see or at least theorize that Scotty was making up lies?).
How this guy could EVER end up on a star-ship, is beyond me.
You would be surprised how high an incompetent person can rise through the ranks of any organisation with luck and/or brownnosing.
And I don't know what TOS you were watching, but most solutions to episodes ended with Kirk either blowing something up, or bludgeoning someone stronger than him with a heavy object.
Seriously, in this movie, where the heck were SF ships, automated support drones with tractor beams, or emergency mass transporter hubs?
You have 2 large vessels tumbling down relatively slowly towards Earth from the general area of the moon, with 0 (fully operational) ships to assist with tractor beams and ... oh I don't know, prevent a big black dreadnaught from smashing into the water causing heavy damage in the process and a number of deaths?
Where did that Earth starbase vanish to exactly?
Or what about sensors which are subspace based technology (capable of detecting ships traveling many times the speed of light, not to mention record extremely detailed data in plethora of galactic phenomena that are orders of magnitude more severe than simple erupting Volcanoes) and yet somehow they miss 2 very damaged SF ships heading towards Earth (and who knows how much time passed while the Dreadnaught was actually attacking the Enterprise near the moon).
As for militarized SF... actually, in TOS it was not exactly on the heavy side of that (mainly when the Klingons were there).
My point is that these 'cliches' are worn out. Coupled with really heavy plot holes you can literally drive a starship through.
That guy on that Dreadnaught that caught Scotty... I mean seriously... he exhibited an education level of an infant, pointing a gun at a person that supposedly was in the area without authorization, and has a whole conversation played out on a communicator that clearly indicates a breach (and seriously, can't you see or at least theorize that Scotty was making up lies?).
How this guy could EVER end up on a star-ship, is beyond me.
You raise a lot of very good, logical questions... the shear absence of other Federation vessels around Earth... not to mention that starbase...
Yea, some of the occurrences are rather silly... but I still like the movie for the visual effects, if nothing else. My dad really likes the music soundtrack, lol.
AMD Ryzen 9 5900X Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB 1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD 32 GB RAM Windows 11 Pro
I think an unsuccessful attempt to stop the Vengeance and Enterprise from falling towards Earth would've added more suspense... but that's just me.
I still think the idea that they were around the moon and were drifting ever so slightly, at most 36 feet a second, but then all of sudden after the Enterprise just shut down completely, just began drifting at several miles per hour and were way closer to the Earth, that they were actually affected that strongly by Earth's gravity all the way out by the moon...
Anyway, the digital release was yesterday and I must say watching the movie on my computer screen is a lot nicer than that theater screen... you can see details better and no flickering from a theater projector. Not to mention, the theater I saw it in, had a horrific echoing effect... it was like playing the movie in an auditorium... but on my computer, it sounds awesome! Especially with a bass speaker, you can really feel the low sounds vibrating through the floor...
AMD Ryzen 9 5900X Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB 1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD 32 GB RAM Windows 11 Pro
You wouldnt have much excitement in the film would you if those things happened.
"Look two ships crashing down to earth"
"Oh thats ok, they have both been safely returned to orbit by tugs"
My point is that 'excitement' can be generated in other ways.
For example, you see SF ships tugging at both the Enterprise and the dreadnaught back into space, but Khan is deliberately attempting to sabotage those attempts to try and crash it back to Earth (the only point of that crash scene was just so that Spock would go after him in an obsolete cliche of 'chasing the bad guy and pummeling him into submission').
Although to be perfectly honest... all those 'highly advanced torpedoes' (72 of them I might add) detonating from inside the dreadnaught should have destroyed it shortly after detonation (plain and simple).
I mean, work within the universe and the technology available... find alternative (and maybe INVENTIVE) ways of bypassing it that would still seem plausible. I mean, the whole scene merely promotes the idea of 'lets conveniently forget about plethora of ships and technology these people are supposed to have and just crash a new ship into the Earth with no obstacles.'
Seriously, they would have seen both ships tumbling down towards Earth, giving them enough time to evacuate the area.
The Starbase in orbit and ground transporter hubs likely have more than enough capacity to evac everyone safely.
SF headquarters can be rebuilt easily (especially with automation doing the work - oh wait, that's right, JJ went for the 'manual labor route' which slows things down considerably - yes, why bother with highly advanced technology doing specialized and repetitive work - especially when it was doable in reality over 10 years ago).
I still think the idea that they were around the moon and were drifting ever so slightly, at most 36 feet a second, but then all of sudden after the Enterprise just shut down completely, just began drifting at several miles per hour and were way closer to the Earth, that they were actually affected that strongly by Earth's gravity all the way out by the moon...
That didn't make any sense.
If anything, I can see the moon maybe exerting a very low gravitational force on the ships, but NOT the Earth.
As you say, the Enterprise was drifting (and was even away from the moon itself)... then suddenly it shuts down and is pushed towards... no other planet but Earth.
Maybe if Khan initiated a tractor beam to push them towards Earth... but as i said before, that dreadnaught surviving internal detonation from 72 highly advanced torpedoes is just as stupid.
This is a video of the shuttle launching, and the boosters returning to earth 8 minutes later.
The shuttle was in orbit, the boosters were not, the shuttle did not fall to earth, the boosters did.
The moon is in orbit of the earth, that does not mean an object near the moon is also in orbit of the earth, any more than an object near the shuttle is in orbit.
Gravity is a force of acceleration, in the atmosphere a falling object will reach terminal velocity, the point where it can no longer speed up, in the vacuum of space there is no terminal velocity, and an object caught in earth's gravity will continue to accelerate until it does hit the atmosphere.
Now this will not happen as quickly as it did in the film, but if you don't accept dramatic licence in movies you might as well not go to them in the first place.
Comparison is not necessarily accurate.
The booster, as well as the shuttle are in extreme proximity of Earth. The shuttle has capability to establish a stable orbit. The booster is EJECTED backwards and in a direction of Earth (no surprise it would be caught by Earth's gravity field).
The Enterprise was ejected from Warp at 237 000 km away from Earth (fairly close to the moon).
I find it unlikely that Earth's gravity field (which was mentioned as being the cause of the ship being pulled toward the planet) would affect the Enterprise as much as it did at that distance.
Gravity fields can extend extremely far (supposedly throughout the cosmos)... but the farther away you are from a gravity generating object, the lower its pull is (and there are other gravitational pulls to take into account - such as in this instance, the Moon, which was far closer to the ships).
At the distances we are talking about, wouldn't it take the Enterprise a very long time to come crashing down on Earth simply from being affected by Earth's gravity field - something in the range of several days?
Poetic license would in this instance work if the Enterprise was coasting towards Earth (which it didn't), after being pushed out of Warp.
Even with the weapons fire pushing the ship, it would still be a minor effect that wouldn't have crashed it anywhere near as fast because it was still too far away (and then there's the moon's gravity field).
M
Seriously, they would have seen both ships tumbling down towards Earth, giving them enough time to evacuate the area.
The Starbase in orbit and ground transporter hubs likely have more than enough capacity to evac everyone safely.
SF headquarters can be rebuilt easily (especially with automation doing the work - oh wait, that's right, JJ went for the 'manual labor route' which slows things down considerably - yes, why bother with highly advanced technology doing specialized and repetitive work - especially when it was doable in reality over 10 years ago).
Comparison is not necessarily accurate.
The booster, as well as the shuttle are in extreme proximity of Earth. The shuttle has capability to establish a stable orbit. The booster is EJECTED backwards and in a direction of Earth (no surprise it would be caught by Earth's gravity field).
The Enterprise was ejected from Warp at 237 000 km away from Earth (fairly close to the moon).
I find it unlikely that Earth's gravity field (which was mentioned as being the cause of the ship being pulled toward the planet) would affect the Enterprise as much as it did at that distance.
Gravity fields can extend extremely far (supposedly throughout the cosmos)... but the farther away you are from a gravity generating object, the lower its pull is (and there are other gravitational pulls to take into account - such as in this instance, the Moon, which was far closer to the ships).
At the distances we are talking about, wouldn't it take the Enterprise a very long time to come crashing down on Earth simply from being affected by Earth's gravity field - something in the range of several days?
Poetic license would in this instance work if the Enterprise was coasting towards Earth (which it didn't), after being pushed out of Warp.
Even with the weapons fire pushing the ship, it would still be a minor effect that wouldn't have crashed it anywhere near as fast because it was still too far away (and then there's the moon's gravity field).
I agree, the gravitational strength on the ISS compared to the surface of the Earth is 89%.
Of course, the effective gravity inside the ISS is very close to zero, because the station is in free fall.
The ISS never hits the ground, because its horizontal speed means that by the time it's fallen, say, 1 meter, the ground is 1 meter farther down, because the Earth's surface is curved. In effect, the station is perpetually falling, but never getting any closer to the ground. That's what an orbit is. As Douglas Adams said, the knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
There's still a little bit of atmosphere even at the height at which the ISS orbits, and that causes some drag. Every now and then they have to re-boost the station, using rockets. During a re-boost, the station isn't in free fall; instead, the result is, in effect, a very small "gravitational" pull inside the station -- which you can see in this fascinating video:
The moon is 1/4 the size of Earth, so the moon's gravity is much less than the earth's gravity, 83.3% (or 5/6) less to be exact.
The Moon is 238,900 miles/384,400 km from Earth.
AMD Ryzen 9 5900X Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB 1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD 32 GB RAM Windows 11 Pro
Posts
I am however a moderator on the forum, and I despise these mob-rule threads, as they are always poison for the forum, so sadly I have to be involved, and bring some balance (if with a good chunk of sarcasm, heck there has to be something in it for me!) Not sure why you're identifying with the fanbois, but that's your choice.
You didn't leave a lot of room, there. It was either you lauded it or you were a whiney internet hater.
Although it's less personal than that. The hypocrisy you were displaying was amusing.
Hmm you know, I'm sorry, I phrased that more harshly than I had intended. I'm not trying to be insulting, I just think your approach is going to cause you some discomfort. (i.e. a bunch of blah-blah-blah from the people you don't want to hear from.)
Well I'll let you all get back to your 'we hate JJ' club
Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
32 GB RAM
Windows 11 Pro
For the record: I don't hate the movie or JJ. I just wasn't blown away by it. I would like for them to have put more time into the script.
I have to agree with that. There was a lot of potential and it was frustrating seeing it wasted the way they did in the two films.
The fans who make Trek fan-films and fan-series like Phase II, they are the most loathesome of these traditionalists who want Trek to be locked into a perpetual cycle of bland characterisation, boring, dated visuals and slavish preservation of a long vanished and primitive era of television.
I really love JJ's take on Star Trek - he's got to the REAL core of Trek, that it should be exciting, energetic and entertaining. It is the future afterall, and it is, literally, a bright, dynamic place. (hence the lens flares, which are just the best thing ever IMO)
I also really like that it gets up the noses of the traditionalists and pisses all over their incorrect view of what Trek ought to be. That's a wonderful bonus.
Seriously, the movie left a rather distasteful aftermath in my mouth.
The acting and SFX were ok, but the story, the characters themselves, etc... the amount of dumbing down featured is beyond stupid.
I also cringed at some of their archaic technology. Sigh... the amount of stupidity and lack of critical thinking permeates this film.
Its no wonder I can no longer stomach virtually any scifi anymore. I cannot even 'enjoy' it as 'mindless entertainment' because I need my 'entertainment' to be mentally stimulating and prompt me to think (something which TNG and Voyager managed on several occasions - DS9, not really).
The latest science in the real world (which is 60 to 100 years ahead of anything in practice), what is realistically achievable when you remove the profit motive and money in general (by using state of the art methods of production which are decades ahead of the ones presently used, and superior synthetic materials that can be made sustainably in abundance), all of it could be portrayed in these movies to illustrate a better world of tomorrow, and instead, its: 'action, action, bang, bang, explosion, nudity, sex' - mindless indeed.
I realize they wanted to go with a 'darker' vision, but frankly, it's beyond stupid.
Also this entire notion of a 'militarized SF' is an idiotic one. What... did they suddenly throw away 200 years of social change, critical thinking and technological evolution to behave even worse than some people today just because of 'Nero'?
Upgrade your technology and implement necessary solutions so you can be 'better prepared' for potential problems, but reverting to 'savagery' is the dumbest move you can take - I mean hello, WWI, II and III in their history books (among other things).
Only in Hollywood would they do such a thing.
And the amount of idiotic cultural myths that people cling to today are still present in the supposed future.
Hollywood needs a heavy dose of relevant general education, critical thinking, problem solving and how to arrive at decisions instead of 'making' them (actually, the whole globe needs this) - but then again, they don't see it as 'profitable'.
Good thing I stopped watching TV 10 years ago. I rarely watch movies (only if they pique my interest), and I was as I mentioned curious about what they did with Trek.
As I theorized, it was really no better than the one with Nero (seriously, as an action flick, even 'Nemesis' was a lot better on every level).
Maybe the gag reel if it has one.
Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
32 GB RAM
Windows 11 Pro
Rogue captains, commodores and admirals from starfleet where not exactly uncommon before this film came out.
Or the militarized Star Fleet...
Actually, no, I wasn't.
But even original Star Trek series had a certain indication of solving problems through science and critical thinking, not just with large explosions all the time.
Rogue commodores, captains and admirals were not done all the time, and it was mainly subtle.
They turned the entire thing into a early 21st century in space fiasco.
Seriously, in this movie, where the heck were SF ships, automated support drones with tractor beams, or emergency mass transporter hubs?
You have 2 large vessels tumbling down relatively slowly towards Earth from the general area of the moon, with 0 (fully operational) ships to assist with tractor beams and ... oh I don't know, prevent a big black dreadnaught from smashing into the water causing heavy damage in the process and a number of deaths?
Where did that Earth starbase vanish to exactly?
Or what about sensors which are subspace based technology (capable of detecting ships traveling many times the speed of light, not to mention record extremely detailed data in plethora of galactic phenomena that are orders of magnitude more severe than simple erupting Volcanoes) and yet somehow they miss 2 very damaged SF ships heading towards Earth (and who knows how much time passed while the Dreadnaught was actually attacking the Enterprise near the moon).
As for militarized SF... actually, in TOS it was not exactly on the heavy side of that (mainly when the Klingons were there).
My point is that these 'cliches' are worn out. Coupled with really heavy plot holes you can literally drive a starship through.
That guy on that Dreadnaught that caught Scotty... I mean seriously... he exhibited an education level of an infant, pointing a gun at a person that supposedly was in the area without authorization, and has a whole conversation played out on a communicator that clearly indicates a breach (and seriously, can't you see or at least theorize that Scotty was making up lies?).
How this guy could EVER end up on a star-ship, is beyond me.
And I don't know what TOS you were watching, but most solutions to episodes ended with Kirk either blowing something up, or bludgeoning someone stronger than him with a heavy object.
The scientific solutions where in the minority.
You raise a lot of very good, logical questions... the shear absence of other Federation vessels around Earth... not to mention that starbase...
Yea, some of the occurrences are rather silly... but I still like the movie for the visual effects, if nothing else. My dad really likes the music soundtrack, lol.
Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
32 GB RAM
Windows 11 Pro
"Look two ships crashing down to earth"
"Oh thats ok, they have both been safely returned to orbit by tugs"
I still think the idea that they were around the moon and were drifting ever so slightly, at most 36 feet a second, but then all of sudden after the Enterprise just shut down completely, just began drifting at several miles per hour and were way closer to the Earth, that they were actually affected that strongly by Earth's gravity all the way out by the moon...
Anyway, the digital release was yesterday and I must say watching the movie on my computer screen is a lot nicer than that theater screen... you can see details better and no flickering from a theater projector. Not to mention, the theater I saw it in, had a horrific echoing effect... it was like playing the movie in an auditorium... but on my computer, it sounds awesome! Especially with a bass speaker, you can really feel the low sounds vibrating through the floor...
Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
32 GB RAM
Windows 11 Pro
My point is that 'excitement' can be generated in other ways.
For example, you see SF ships tugging at both the Enterprise and the dreadnaught back into space, but Khan is deliberately attempting to sabotage those attempts to try and crash it back to Earth (the only point of that crash scene was just so that Spock would go after him in an obsolete cliche of 'chasing the bad guy and pummeling him into submission').
Although to be perfectly honest... all those 'highly advanced torpedoes' (72 of them I might add) detonating from inside the dreadnaught should have destroyed it shortly after detonation (plain and simple).
I mean, work within the universe and the technology available... find alternative (and maybe INVENTIVE) ways of bypassing it that would still seem plausible. I mean, the whole scene merely promotes the idea of 'lets conveniently forget about plethora of ships and technology these people are supposed to have and just crash a new ship into the Earth with no obstacles.'
Seriously, they would have seen both ships tumbling down towards Earth, giving them enough time to evacuate the area.
The Starbase in orbit and ground transporter hubs likely have more than enough capacity to evac everyone safely.
SF headquarters can be rebuilt easily (especially with automation doing the work - oh wait, that's right, JJ went for the 'manual labor route' which slows things down considerably - yes, why bother with highly advanced technology doing specialized and repetitive work - especially when it was doable in reality over 10 years ago).
That didn't make any sense.
If anything, I can see the moon maybe exerting a very low gravitational force on the ships, but NOT the Earth.
As you say, the Enterprise was drifting (and was even away from the moon itself)... then suddenly it shuts down and is pushed towards... no other planet but Earth.
Maybe if Khan initiated a tractor beam to push them towards Earth... but as i said before, that dreadnaught surviving internal detonation from 72 highly advanced torpedoes is just as stupid.
This is a video of the shuttle launching, and the boosters returning to earth 8 minutes later.
The shuttle was in orbit, the boosters were not, the shuttle did not fall to earth, the boosters did.
The moon is in orbit of the earth, that does not mean an object near the moon is also in orbit of the earth, any more than an object near the shuttle is in orbit.
Gravity is a force of acceleration, in the atmosphere a falling object will reach terminal velocity, the point where it can no longer speed up, in the vacuum of space there is no terminal velocity, and an object caught in earth's gravity will continue to accelerate until it does hit the atmosphere.
Now this will not happen as quickly as it did in the film, but if you don't accept dramatic licence in movies you might as well not go to them in the first place.
The booster, as well as the shuttle are in extreme proximity of Earth. The shuttle has capability to establish a stable orbit. The booster is EJECTED backwards and in a direction of Earth (no surprise it would be caught by Earth's gravity field).
The Enterprise was ejected from Warp at 237 000 km away from Earth (fairly close to the moon).
I find it unlikely that Earth's gravity field (which was mentioned as being the cause of the ship being pulled toward the planet) would affect the Enterprise as much as it did at that distance.
Gravity fields can extend extremely far (supposedly throughout the cosmos)... but the farther away you are from a gravity generating object, the lower its pull is (and there are other gravitational pulls to take into account - such as in this instance, the Moon, which was far closer to the ships).
At the distances we are talking about, wouldn't it take the Enterprise a very long time to come crashing down on Earth simply from being affected by Earth's gravity field - something in the range of several days?
Poetic license would in this instance work if the Enterprise was coasting towards Earth (which it didn't), after being pushed out of Warp.
Even with the weapons fire pushing the ship, it would still be a minor effect that wouldn't have crashed it anywhere near as fast because it was still too far away (and then there's the moon's gravity field).
That is a LOT of unsupported speculation.
I agree, the gravitational strength on the ISS compared to the surface of the Earth is 89%.
Of course, the effective gravity inside the ISS is very close to zero, because the station is in free fall.
The ISS never hits the ground, because its horizontal speed means that by the time it's fallen, say, 1 meter, the ground is 1 meter farther down, because the Earth's surface is curved. In effect, the station is perpetually falling, but never getting any closer to the ground. That's what an orbit is. As Douglas Adams said, the knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
There's still a little bit of atmosphere even at the height at which the ISS orbits, and that causes some drag. Every now and then they have to re-boost the station, using rockets. During a re-boost, the station isn't in free fall; instead, the result is, in effect, a very small "gravitational" pull inside the station -- which you can see in this fascinating video:
The moon is 1/4 the size of Earth, so the moon's gravity is much less than the earth's gravity, 83.3% (or 5/6) less to be exact.
The Moon is 238,900 miles/384,400 km from Earth.
Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
32 GB RAM
Windows 11 Pro
Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
32 GB RAM
Windows 11 Pro