Okay, so all of us starship freaks are patiently awaiting the new movie, and just what we'll be seeing in terms of new ships designs. I thought I'd start a thread about the new ships of Star Trek XI, based on the information we know so far (with spoilers, of course). Hopefully as the months go by, we'll get more and more ship info up until the premiere, but for now let's see what we have:
$$$$$$$SPOILERS AHEAD!!!$$$$$$$$ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $
1. The U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701, Constitution Class. This new take on the venerable old Enterprise was designed by Ryan Church, who is best known for his work on the Star Wars prequels. Because it seems that this Enterprise is brand-new once Pike takes command and Kirk is serving as a cadet, this implies that any other Starfleet vessel shown will be an older design.
2. The U.S.S. Kelvin NCC-0514, class unknown. The ship that Kirk's father served on twenty years ago. The ship consists of a flat saucer section, with a secondary hull above and a very large nacelle below. The ship is supposed to be smaller than the Enterprise, but probably not by much. Pike is rumored to have quoted to Kirk that his father saved 800 people during the Kelvin's "accident." Does this mean that the Kelvin had a crew complement of 800 or even more than that?
3. Other 23rd century Federation starships. I was less than thrilled to hear that they hired John Eaves to be the principle ship designer for this movie (sans the Enterprise), since I dislike his work because all his designs look the same regardless of race, organization, or time period that the ships belong. I'm hoping that at least with both the Enterprise and the Kelvin designs, he'll try to stick close to those aesthetics. With that said, we know at least that other Starfleet vessels will be shown, because they appeared destroyed over Vulcan in the trailer. These ships were part of the "Vulcan rescue fleet" to which the Enterprise also belongs, so it's reasonably certain we'll see them in their pre-destroyed state. We do see that the wreckage consists mainly of saucers and nacelles (or perhaps engineering sections, since the nacelles seem to be as large as they are ). We definitely see one intact ship at the space station, although it is very small. It seems to consist of a small saucer with two nacelles attached to upward-pointing pylons.
4. Romulan starships (24th century). I'm assuming that any Romulan ships we will see will originate in the 24th century, or whatever future point in time Nero comes from. It is not at all certain that the "Narada" space-octopus thing is actually a Romulan ship. There is a description of the ship Nero actually uses to tether to Vulcan: "all angles, with chains drooping off the sides." Sounds like a John Eaves-designed prison ship to me...
5. Klingon starships. Since Nero is apparently being held prisoner on the Rura Penthe of the 24th century, and Anton Yelchin is quoted as saying that there are Klingon ships on the screen (possibly during Kirk's Kobayashi Maru test), it seems we may see Klingon vessels from both time periods. JJ Abrams said that there was a whole plot thread involving Klingons that he had to cut for story reasons. Hopefully the deleted scenes will be on the DVD release.
6. 24th century starships. So far, the only known 24th century vessel is old Spock's Vulcan time ship. I was sincerely hoping that old Spock came from far enough in the future that if there were any scenes there, the Enterprise-F would be shown. That would have been a great symbol of how long the Enterprise's legacy would have lasted to the average movie viewer. But that probably won't happen. It's just as well - if it did, it would probably have been designed by John Eaves.
7. Other ships. If Trek history is to be followed, we may get to see the actual Kobayashi Maru freighter. Plus, there will be shuttles, escape pods, etc. that will or have already been shown.
Posted by Brown_supahero (Member # 83) on :
I have been trying to catch up on news, browsing around the net. I'm 2 months behind on what's going on.
I came upon this page http://blog.myspace.com/gabekoerner... I also played a few hands on PartyPoker, read about the market, and found out who Seth Killian is.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Gabe Koerner has nothing to do with this movie.
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
sUPAfly, you're waaaaaay behind the times (Elvis Clones, space hampsters, etc...)
where ya been?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Pike is rumored to have quoted to Kirk that his father saved 800 people during the Kelvin's "accident." Does this mean that the Kelvin had a crew complement of 800 or even more than that?
could mean anything- the 800 figure could mean he saved a colony and the ship or whatever. He might've saved the ship from blowing up at a starbase.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
So far there's been no mention of significant scenes being deleted (I hope none will be, I still remember the sinking feeling I had when it was revealed that various bits of character stuff were being removed from Insurrection and Nemesis), so I'm guessing any Klingon scenes never made it past script stage, especially if they're being deleted for "story reasons."
Posted by Johnny (Member # 878) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: Gabe Koerner has nothing to do with this movie.
No, but he does have some interesting thoughts on the new Enerprise on his blog there. He points out that people who don't like it shouldn't be harsh on Ryan Church, as it's the producers who decide the direction of the design and the finished product might not reflect the artist's tastes at all.
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
... like asking all the pyromaniacs to NOT burn the world (please?)...
back on topic. Has anyone done good looks at the material present about what ships are seen? ala BOBW indepth? i mean when the tech was availible 10 years ago, folks like Berne used the Hubble space station to analize the BOBW and what-not (and for that, the epic win with HUBBLE von Berne, we salute you!), why hasn't anyone done the same with the new trailer for JJ-Ent?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Probably because there's not a lot of material available. For instance, I just went through the trailer again, and all I could find were these two frames of the wreckage over Vulcan. And since, generally, the canon ship classes preceding and contemporary to the Connie are a bit of a grey area, I don't think you're going to see anything you recognise. . .
I thought I saw the Vulcan Landing Vessel from First Contact in the part in the preview where it pans across a Vulcan city.
Posted by Johnny (Member # 878) on :
As Dukhat said, there's a ship in the background of the shot where the Enterprise warps away from the Starbase, but it's very small and blurry. For all we know we'll see another ship of that class in a berth alongside the Enterprise anyway. Not much point analysing it at this stage.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
And the wreckage seems too scattered to identify any specific design. For all we know the wreckage consists of Kelvin and Nu-Ent parts darkened and damaged to create the illusion of various ship designs that were destroyed.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Maybe they'll piss us all off and use parts of well-known CGI models as wreckage. I'd laugh myself into a coma to see a wrecked Dauntless in there.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
They might have a sence of humour and put BoBW wreckage in there.
They won't. But it'd be funny, if totaly out of place.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I considered that...or maybe the partly-wrecked NOMAD probe for laughs. Or the Aeon! That would be hilarious.
Posted by Johnny (Member # 878) on :
Or REALLY piss everyone off and put the original 1701 in there. Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
^I can see that happening.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Oh! They could have the timepod thinger that was found drifting and damaged in the battle debris- that would be a cool nod.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
They have a Hi-Res pick of the Nu-E. Shows more deflector dish detail.
Nice, though the Enterprise pic seems to be a lot darker than previous versions of the same image.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
My fellow modelers are not amused.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Hmmm... for some reason that hi res pic changed my mind about the nacelles. I didn't mind them, but now, for some reason, they look... uncircumsized.
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
Who knew that the Enterprise was Jewish?
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vanguard: Who knew that the Enterprise was Jewish?
Speaking off... is any of the new cast jewish? (Maybe Happy Gilmore will update his happy hanika song?)
*giggles insanely* ...uncircumsized hubcaps...
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Who knew that the Enterprise was Jewish?"
Obviously you're not...
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN:
"Who knew that the Enterprise was Jewish?"
Obviously you're not...
I actually don't mind the shape of the nacelles. They look like the precursor of the TMP refit engines. If anything, they look a bit "front heavy".
Posted by Jim NCC1701A (Member # 1021) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: Probably because there's not a lot of material available. For instance, I just went through the trailer again, and all I could find were these two frames of the wreckage over Vulcan. And since, generally, the canon ship classes preceding and contemporary to the Connie are a bit of a grey area, I don't think you're going to see anything you recognise. . .
Is that a Connie with it's saucer blown up and nacelles missing? Just above Sulu's head...
Looks like a Kelvin-type nacelle in the right hand side of the viewscreen in the first frame-grab.
Posted by mkimball (Member # 2128) on :
Paramount and JJ abrams are taken a nod to Watchmen and alternate universe like in the comics... The story plot which has Nero changing the time line which creates an alternate universe with more advanced technology than the original Timeline. I think this is an interesting way to update the look of trek with it ships and sets but not change the characters... I like the new look but I think they could have pick a better still of the new enterprise... the wide angle view distorts the design. I really feel that this will relaunch the franchise. I think the story will not flow in a linear story like the all the trek films but fit with JJ Abrams style like mission 3 or lost where they like to jump around in a non-linear way. What better story to fit that than a time travel film... I do like the Kelvin design and I don't have a problem with Enterprise built on the ground. It would be much easier to build than in space and with advance tractor beams or ships they can tug it into space... I know that by building it on earth you can get a better feel how big The Enterpirse is with relations to the land and human walking around her.
Posted by shikaru808 (Member # 2080) on :
I'm glad that you gave your two cents on everything that could possibly be discussed in relation to the movie. It still won't make me check out Star Ranger 7 though, tough luck.
Posted by Krenim (Member # 22) on :
Now now. He's trying1. Let's play nice2.
1. For now. 2. For now.
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
So whut's the deal with Team Hampster-7?
*shrug* not gonna look. my laptop's got enough shite on it.
but you gotta agree with his comment (the timeline fucking with makes sence/encourages/dry humps the reset button...
at least team hampster-7 doesn't have variable nacelles (E has at least 3 months b4 he's predicted to come back)
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I don't see how Nero going back in time to Kirk's Academy days could change the design of the Enterprise or update the Federation's technology. He would've had to have gone back decades (at least) before the events in the movie.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Well, who knows? Maybe some junior officer on the Kelvin would've become an interior designer who started the whole matte-black-and jellybeans control panel setup.
(But seriously, I agree... the divergence in the timeline must be further in the past.)
Posted by mkimball (Member # 2128) on :
The timeline is changed because of the attack of the kelvin... Nero ship is from the 24th century is far more advanced than that of Kirks time. Something must happen in the film that lets that technology get into Federations hands... that would explain why Kirk Enterprise feels like it would fit in with Picards time. The new bridge alone looks far more advance than Picards ship. It will be interesting if they mention the first Enterprise Captain April or has the timeline changed that makes Pike the first.
Now I way reading the other day about an old classic film to being remade. Forbidden Planet, the 1950 classic. they plan a new trilogy film that may be directed by James Cameron and written by Babylon 5's J. Michael Straczynski.
This got me thinking how much Gene Roddenberry was influenced by Forbidden Planet. I mean you could put the enterprise and the crew in that movie and it would make a great film.
anyone find that interesting...
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
There's two different ways to argue the development of technology: the appearance, and the functionality. Although you can argue that they're independent of one another to a degree, appearance is still mandated by its function.
For example, let's say that Bill Gates never existed; maybe he was killed by Khan and replaced by someone like, say, Henry Starling. (Ed: There's no mysterious future technology in play here, I'm just replacing one person with another.) The information revolution would have taken a vastly different course, perhaps; maybe today's personal computers would look quite different from what they actually do.
But the core functionality of those computers would remain the same; because no matter how different events progressed, they still have the same starting point. The combined forces of society, aesthetics, science, philosophy, etc. would continue to propel things along the same general path. Barring some kind of radical discovery (which is pretty unlikely) things can't really change that much.
Therefore, because the functionality of the technology behind the Enterprise can't change drastically, the radically different appearance becomes highly incongruous.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
It's a flimsy argument to be sure, but for the purposes of the "look" of everything versus its importance to the story that should be sufficient - most of the new fans this movie is looking to cultivate won't care. We're SUPPOSED to accept whatever throwaway line we'll get ("Nero came back in time - the changes are already being felt in the 24th century!", etc.) as enough.
And agreed with the "look" being no more or less high tech than other iterations. The fact that the new Enterprise bridge looks like the iPod design crew threw up on it has little bearing on its actual functionality. It didnt' take us long at all to accept that the ENT design ethic was supposedly less advanced than the TOS version, despite the former looking so much more detailed and complex; this was further cemented when we could directly compare the two in the "Mirror" two parter late in ENT's run.
Also, time travel is a really tricky business. Who knows - perhaps Nero made several jumps through time to find the right time and place to get to a young Kirk. That, or some side effect of whatever time travel technology rippled back and/or forth in time, causing tiny changes in what Commander Jefferies had for breakfast had twenty years prior; and the resultant butterfly effect gave us what we see.
Mark
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
Actually, Mark, it seems that (anecdotally) the majority of people, even those few who stuck with ENT, never accepted the look of ENT as working with TOS. Hell, even the cast didn't.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
You can make that argument with any of the post TOS series. They all accepted the look of TOS even though it was very much a product of the sixties,with bright colors, women in mini skirts, and big honking computers filled with sixties circuitry. But that's why you suspend disbelief and accept it all as being part of the same timeline. So this movie's tech looks different from TOS, time to put that disbelief on the coat hanger again.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
How cynical we've become, nobody had a problem with the look of the E-D Bridge in "Yesterday's Ent." We all just chalked it up to a different (dark/sombre/wartime-ish) mood informing the design of the place. Never mind the fact that the rest of the E-D, seemingly unchanged, wouldn't have been designed the way it was. . .
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
I think that, with the Ent-D, we accept it because we know that there's no way that the 'per week' television format would allow for entirely new sets. We know, innately, that more would have indeed changed, but accept that the show wasn't able to show us that.
That's not the same as ENT (or Abrams Trek) which were jarring solely because of their design choices.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
The context of the movie may clarify the effect the time travel has had on the timeline, but it seems unlikely that Nero has been playing around in any other time than when the movie is set. If that's the case, there's no way his presence could've effected the design or the function of Federation technology in the 23rd century. Just bringing future technology to the past doesn't automatically update everything, mkimball me lad.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
Wasn't it easier when we could say First Contact screwing the whole thing up and explained Enterprise? Damn TPTB for actualy making a good Enterprise episode, shooting our convinent excuse for the mucked up timeline to hell!
I expect that either the timeline alterations will have a very explicit reference made, or there will be no mention of it at all, and we'll just have to deal with it.
Given what I've read about the whole thing, we may even get the first. But we'll still just have to deal with it, so all the Trek-puritans will be made to cry.
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Ginger Beacon: Wasn't it easier when we could say First Contact screwing the whole thing up and explained Enterprise? Damn TPTB for actualy making a good Enterprise episode, shooting our convinent excuse for the mucked up timeline to hell!
I expect that either the timeline alterations will have a very explicit reference made, or there will be no mention of it at all, and we'll just have to deal with it.
Given what I've read about the whole thing, we may even get the first. But we'll still just have to deal with it, so all the Trek-puritans will be made to cry.
are you refering to 'A Mirror, Darkly'? as far as introducing the TOS Defiant to ENT?
doesn't fuck up a wet dream. Allow me to explain...
1) [One] Teh # uno: Mirror universe.
2) [Two] Teh # Dose: ENT is the post FC universe. So anything that could occur, probably did. In the last episode of ENT, durin any of the flash-forwards to Riker & the Scoob gang, did you ever see the Ent-D exterior? I don't remember but assuming that any tech made after ENT would probably look different/better...
yeah, excuses but TPTB require them.
FC mucked up the TOS/TMP/TNG universes (look at how the next two movies became, looking the POV that something did change, even though they thought they fixed things right.
JJ-ENT will do the same thing, much up things to allow for change. i think the one thing i'd like to know is, does JJ-ENT follow ENT time-wise completely/partially? or is it another run thru the muck? complete and utter changes for all of the future shows (Remember, time travel equals the reset button/$ from Paraumount)...
now i actually wished they didn't do TOS-R because with JJ-ENT... i would have CGI fucking EVER_MUTHA-FUCKIN' thing... from uniforms to Andorian cock-rings... artistic licence? i'd wipe my ass with that, to utterly Re-CGI TOS and everything else...
*breaths* Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
ENT (and most of Trek up to this point) was based on a predestinational model of time travel. Everything that happened was "supposed" to happen including FC. (See "Regeneration" where at the end of the episode the signal is triggered that will reach the Borg in the 24th century and lead to them investigating the Alpha Quadrant.)
The new movie is purportedly based not on such a model, but rather on a quantum multiverse, a concept that has been explored before in Trek ("Parallels" [TNG], "Mirror Mirror" [TOS], et al) but not in direct connection with time travel.
How everything ties together will not become clear until the movie comes out, and I suspect not even then. But I think we can assume that somehow it all does. We just don't have sufficient information to come up with a conclusive answer.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
What will likely happen is that we'll end up with the conclusion that this is a reboot and not really related to other Treks any more than the Lost in Space movie was related to the original series. Same characters, same ship, new look.
And you know what... I'm fine with that.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pensive's Wetness: [QB2) [Two] Teh # Dose: ENT is the post FC universe. So anything that could occur, probably did. In the last episode of ENT, durin any of the flash-forwards to Riker & the Scoob gang, did you ever see the Ent-D exterior? I don't remember but assuming that any tech made after ENT would probably look different/better...[/QB]
We saw the E-D exterior several times during that episode. Just look through Trek Core and you'll see 'em.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Personally I couldn't give two shites either way, so long as it's a good movie.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
There you go. Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aban Rune: What will likely happen is that we'll end up with the conclusion that this is a reboot and not really related to other Treks any more than the Lost in Space movie was related to the original series. Same characters, same ship, new look.
And you know what... I'm fine with that.
It has been unilaterally stated by the people making the movie that this is not their intention, though.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim:
quote:Originally posted by Aban Rune: What will likely happen is that we'll end up with the conclusion that this is a reboot and not really related to other Treks any more than the Lost in Space movie was related to the original series. Same characters, same ship, new look.
And you know what... I'm fine with that.
It has been unilaterally stated by the people making the movie that this is not their intention, though.
quote:Anthony: OK, now let’s get really into it. From the trailer, and certainly from the four scene preview, there is no doubt that things are different. Pike and Kirk are hanging out in a bar. The ship looks different. Kirk is on the Enterprise and not headed to the Farragut. People are seeing Romulans…things are different. Now it has been revealed in the Entertainment Weekly article that Nero goes back in time and attacks the Kelvin, and JJ also talked about this during his previews. So the big question is: Is the destruction of the Kelvin, the canon reason why everything is different?
Bob: It is the reason why some things are different, but not everything is different. Not everything is inconsistent with what might have actually happened, in canon. Some of the things that seem that they are totally different, I will argue, once the film comes out, fall well within what could have been the non-time travel version of this move.
Anthony: So, for example, Kirk is different, because his back story has totally changed, in that his parents…and all that. But you are saying that maybe Scotty or Spock’s back story would not be affected by that change?
Bob: Right.
Anthony: Does the time travel explain why the Enterprise looks different and why it is being built in Riverside Iowa?
Bob: Yes, and yes.
Anthony: OK, well then some fans will say ‘fair enough, alternate timeline, we are used to that, but that is not my Kirk, that is some other Kirk.’ So is this still our movie, or are we seeing some other version of Star Trek?
Bob: Well that depends on whether or not you believe in nature or nurture and how much you believe in, for lack of a better word, their souls. I would argue that for the characters, their true nature does not change. Our motto for this movie was ’same ship, different day.’
They're not going all willy-nilly changing stuff ((cough) *BSG* (cough)), but it is basically a reboot by setting most of the renewed franchise (we trust) in a universe not the same as the most well-trod.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Right. It functions in some respects like a reboot, but not in the same sense as Lost In Space (to use Aban's example) or BSG (to use yours) in that there is an explanation for why things are different and the existence of everything that has come before is acknowledged within the context of the story.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Yah, there's an explanation. But not a very good one, IMHO. It sounds like trying to justify how this really fits in when it obviously doesn't.
Part of it, I guess, will have to do with how long before Kirk's Academy days the destruction of the Kelvin takes place. In other words, does Nero go back to when Kirk was a baby to initiate his e-vil plan? That would give him a chance to effect more of the character's backstories. But if the attack on the Kelvin is something that happens, say, while the Enterprise is being built, then the above quoted explanation is total crap.
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
For this all to work, the timeline changes MUST occur before 2245. The only problem is, of course, I seriously doubt that Abrams and Co really CARE all that much about those details, hence the increasing desperation in placating 'fanbois' with technobabble excuses for the writing.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
My impression is that the Kelvin incident takes place before Kirk is even born.
You guys are right that this is all a fairly thin veil of excuses, and I would definitely have preferred a straight prequel, but I think we should be glad they're making any attempt at all to explain it. Like I said in the thread in General, as far as I'm concerned, the worst possible thing would have been for it to just be a remake. I'm so so sick of remakes.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
{Activates BS-o-Matic}
Obviously, significant chronoclasmic events in the timeline can not only effect changes to the chain of temporal causality in the T+ direction, but like ripples in a pond can produce a capillary wavefront of elementary dimensional temporal distortion in the T- direction, with the result (naturally) that a significant enough interference event can alter reality in the T- direction "simultaneous to" (forgiving the joke) the simple causality chain breakages in the T+ trajectory.
{Deactivates BS-o-Matic}
Or:
"Nero screws shit up so bad, he changes the past even further back than his bumpy-headed ass went!"
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
That may not be as out there as it sounds, given how many temporal incursions originated from the 23rd century (and Kirk in particular) so any predestination paradoxes would also be influenced, thereby altering their effect on the the past.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Hey, I didn't think of THAT! Fascinating...
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
So, Nero screws up Kirks timeline, which screws up the rest of the timeline by screwing with Kirk, in the future, screwing with the timeline? Got it!
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
That's a much cleaner version than the BS-o-Matic.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Ginger Beacon: So, Nero screws up Kirks timeline, which screws up the rest of the timeline by screwing with Kirk, in the future, screwing with the timeline? Got it!
Wasn't this idea the basis for episode of Dexter's Laboratory? Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
The movie, wasn't it?
"But those were the robots I sent... ah well."
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Oh yeah, it was the movie. Ego-trip. Posted by HerbShrump (Member # 1230) on :
Somehow, screwing with Kirk's timeline results in Enterprise design changes and greatly reducing the age gap between Kirk and Chekov.
Who knew Kirk's life was THAT influential?
Posted by Johnny (Member # 878) on :
The age gap is one thing that can actually be explained by the attack on the Kelvin, though. If George Kirk was aboard, perhaps the experience of the attack made him have kids slightly later? That would account for the seemingly smaller Kirk/McCoy age gap too.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Isn't George Kirk killed on the Kelvin?
Posted by Johnny (Member # 878) on :
Is he? I haven't been reading spoilers, all I could tell from the trailer was that at least some of the crew escaped the ship. In that case, my theory goes out the window. Shame. It actually made some sense.
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
Not sure if he dies on the Kelvin, but we do know that Jim is raised by a drunken abusive uncle rather than his father - for the ANGST!
God, this film makes me ill.
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
You make me ill. Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Getting this back on topic...
This website has posted images from the prequel comics. Spoilers ahead... $ $ $ $
The stardate of the prequel comic is 64333.4, which is the calendar year 2387, eight years after Star Trek: Nemesis. We see Nero's Romulan (pirate?) crew, and their ship with that funky grappling hook we saw in the trailer. Now I'm confused: I thought the "surreal" inside of the ship was actually the "Narada's" interior, but it's the pirate ship. Huh. The pirate ship doesn't look like a Romulan vessel at all, but who knows what's been happening in the last eight years?
We also see an evac shuttle, and Romulan EVA suits. Doesn't the guy in the bottom right corner of the frame look like Picard?
This comic comes out in four days. I am so buying it.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Looks like mini-Scimitars to me. I guess the Remans have been makin' good over the past eight years.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
That, or all Reman warships share a similar aesthetic, just like the Romulans.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
I was under the impression that the Remans didn't have any ships, just the Scimitar and its fighters.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
It's been a while since I've seen 'Nemisis' so I honestly don't recall. From a purely logical point of view though, since the Scimitar was so aesthetically distinct, both externally and internally from what we know of Romulan ships that it stands to reason that there would have been some earlier basis for the design. Otherwise it would surely have essentially been Romulan technology with a dimmer switch.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Considering Picard's reaction when the Scimitar first decloaks, you're probably right. Saying, "She's a predator" is a far cry from "What the hell? That's not a Romulan ship. Romulan ships don't look anything like that. They're green, for God's sake!"
I personally like to think that the Scimitar was a new class of Romulan ship, which was modified for use by the Remans. I just can't see a subjugated slave race possessing any kind of fleet whatsoever. Since the film was vague on so many issues, I suppose that's as good a guess as any. And if these mini-Scimitars actually show up in the film (they probably won't), and they are unequivocally Romulan ships, I'll be happy that my hypothesis was borne out.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Of course we know next to nothing about the Remans and their history (AFAIK - I don't read the novels) so it's hard to say exactly how much of a slave race they really are. Part of the problem is that our perception of slavery is understandably coloured by the African slave trade of the 17th, 18th & 19th century. If you look at the sort of practices of slavery in ancient Rome, Egypt and even here, prior to the Norman invasion it's entierly possible for a slave race used as more than just labours or cannon fodder. If I remember correctly, some of the more successful examples not only earned their freedom but became rich men. So in the case of the Remans, it may be that they're actually more of an "under-class", rather than slaves in the way we think of them. They certainly have their own distinct culture, language, alphabet and sense of aesthetics. Perhaps they were an independent race that were conquered when the Romulans re-settled in that part of space, or perhaps they're the descendants of a very specific breed of Vulcan that left with the Romulans. My personal theory is they they're the remnants of Vulcan's own eugenics program, given their features in common with other Vulcanoids and their enhanced telepathic abilities. So whatever culture and technology they still posses is likewise a remnant of whichever region of Ancient Vulcan they originated from.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Nemesis mentions that Shinzon built the Scimitar at "a secret base", IIRC. That would imply it's a unique creation and doesn't necessarily indicate that the Remans have a fleet.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
That doesn't imply it's a unique creation. It's quite possible the Scimitar is a Romulan design, but was constructed secretly for the Remans.
Posted by Starship Freak (Member # 293) on :
If "the secret base" is anything like the Monac shipyards, there could be many reman ships, although of lesser stature.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
The base needn't even be secret. It might have started out initially just with Remans as the workforce, but Shinzon's rising power as a military tactician could have led to his gaining (legal) full control of a working shipyard. Then, any Romulans on the staff could be either kept from informing the High Command on what was going on there, by being re-assigned elsewhere, kept incommunicado/providing false reports, or by disposing of them altogether (this last would be the easiest but might cause more problems as Command would want to know what happened to these people and why).
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
Why are you defending Nemesis of all things? The entire premise is so frackin' absurd, and the rationalizations are the stuff that makes Star Trek fans get beat up in high school.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
You know I was skimming SCN, and they were having a similar discussion. Someone theorized that the Scimitar had Dominion origins. Either the big S was captured Dom ship or it was built from stolen plans. Meh, but that sounds too fanboyish for me. And Vanguard, thanks for reminding us how much you hate Nemesis again.
Posted by HerbShrump (Member # 1230) on :
Actually that would make me feel better about the Scimitar.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I wouldn't be surprised if the Scimitar was at least partly based on reverse engineered Jem'hadar vessel. Hell, I'd be surprised if both Starfleet and the Klingons weren't implementing whatever useful technology they could scavenge after the war. Still, the whole design ethos of the Scimitar still have a VERY distinct look, apart from Romulan and Dominion designs, at least internally. Dominion ships are extremely utilitarian and I seriously doubt you'll get the massive hallways, grandiose stairways and huge ornate windows that we saw on the Scimitar. In a way it's almost cathedral like, compared to the Romulan's Greco-Roman sensibilities.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Actually, I'm pretty certain we first had the idea of the Scimitar being a captured Dominion battleship.
Someone here even did a nice overlay of the two ships and the notion of them sharing the same internal spaceframe was at least a possibility.
I'd go through the old threads but I am a lazy lazy man.
sooo...lazy...
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
Just saw the third trailer, and it's psyched me up, big time.
Some good screen caps of the trailer at TrekBBS. Saw a couple of interesting things in the wreckage scenes.
Starbase wreckage? As it looks too big to be the saucer from a ship, as it dwarfs the enterprise in front of it. Could be a registry number on the left side of that saucer, which you can make out once the big-E moves out of the way.
USS ... flowe...? Had a quick google of historical names and came up with this list of what it could be. Cornflower? Mayflower? Gilliflower? Sunflower? Wallflower? Windflower? Not sure on the ship class though.
Posted by Andru (Member # 2145) on :
Hi guys, I'm new to this forum and just felt like throwing in my 2 cents re the new trailer...
That wrecked "Mayflower" saucer looks a lot like a Kelvin-type, the pattern of hull stripes and the details of the saucer edge match those on the Kelvin. The registry appears to be x62x, possibly NCC-0620 but don't quote me on this ! Moreover there are at least 4-5 nacelle-like elements in the scene, many of which look like the Kelvin single nacelle.
Well I sure hope not *every* Starfleet ship we get to see in the movie is a re-use of the Kelvin CGI :-/ But at least they re-labeled it !
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
What about the Narada? Love to know what's going on there, doesn't seem to be anything recognizable as warp nacelles, impulse, a bridge, etc. It's just a mish-mash of hair strand like structures. Cosmic Beard!
Posted by OverRon (Member # 2036) on :
Made a couple of captures from the 1080 trailer and tweaked the levels a bit.
I don't think that massive saucer and the "Flower" are the same bits of debris. As the damage on the "Flower" looks to be in the place where the registry would be, and on the big saucer there's damage where the name would be.
How big is a Kelvin-type anyways? As unless the big-E is about to ram into that large saucer section, it's a lot bigger than her, on the order of a galaxy class saucer or larger.
Can't make out much more of the name here.
I can make out the #62# registry on that big saucer there but can't tell what the numbers either side are.
Posted by Andru (Member # 2145) on :
Both the ...FLOWE... and the ...62... markings are visible on the same piece of debris in another scene (sorry I have the capture but don't know how to post it, but it's in the scene with the debris as seen from the Enterprise viewscreen). I agree that the numbers on either side of the 62 are open to conjecture. Maybe we'll figure them in the IMAX version hehe !
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Damn, that is a big saucer. If it does belong to a ship, let's hope we see it before it gets destroyed.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
There's a spoiler thread over at TrekBBS from people who have already seen the movie in Sydney. I didn't want to be spoiled about the movie's plot, but I did want to know about some specific ship questions, which I didn't think would spoil anything (for me, anyway). If you think that even this information will spoil you, then don't read further. But I thought some ship info might interest others.
Starfleet ships: The Enterprise is brand-new, so there are no other ships like it in the movie. Besides the Kelvin from 20 years before, there are indeed several new 23rd century Starfleet ship designs, including one with a saucer and four nacelles like the Constellation class. All the ships are described as older than the Enterprise, but different from the Kelvin. However, in the trailers we see wrecked saucers that look like the Kelvin's, so there may be some CGI kitbashing too. The Farragut is mentioned by name, so one of these older ships is presumably the vessel that Kirk would have been assigned to in the regular timeline, which also could invalidate it as a Constitution class ship (which suits me fine...I was never happy that Okuda made both the Farragut and the Republic Connies).
Klingon ships: Apparently we'll see "fake" Klingon ships during the Kobayashi Maru test.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Reading the spoiler over at TrekBBS, a lot to think about and I'm not just talking aboutthe ships.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
I think I'll just avoid spoilers until I see the film. Although I've read the ones above, but then as you say it's not really relevant to the film as a whole. Perhaps start a new thread for starship discussion if you have seen the film? Or would that be redundant? So far this one has been more about speculation than discussion.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
So there is a four nacelled ship, can't wait to see it. At this point we're pretty much familiar with the Kelvin and the Big-E, so I think talking about other ships in the film is such a big spoiler. Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Sorry for double post, but the movie site has posted an image of the New Stardock showing some new designs, though they look kitbashed from the Kelvin and Enterprise.
Some do, some don't, and most are too small to make out. Hopefully we'll see them larger soon.
The four-nacelled ship looks cool, though.
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
Yay! More canon three-nacelled ships! Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Is that a Kelvin on the bottom left? From there clockwise it appears to go four-nacelle, three-nacelle, can't tell, nuConstitution, can't tell, three-nacelle, two-nacelle (almost a Nebularised nuConstitution).
Posted by tricky (Member # 1402) on :
Bigger pic via Doug's blog: http://www.startrekmovie.com/downloads/desktop.html?file=d43_1920.jpg&width=1920&height=1200 Think the 3 nacelle ships (atleast the one on the far right, the one to it's left the nacells are all all different lengths with engine glowy sides and ends) actually have 2 engine nacelles and a kelvin style engineering hull, the lower cylinder looks shorter than the top 2, and there's a vauge hint of a shuttle bay at the back.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Bigger?! It's the exact same size, but cropped, you numpty!
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
But you are right about the two ships on the bottom right, the obvious three-naceller has glowy bits along only the two upper nacelles, suggesting the lower one is an engineering hull/pod; it also appears to have an Intrepid-style saucer. The one to its left which looks like the lower pod should be an engineering hull, has glowy bits on it!
The ship up and to the right of the obvious four-naceller could be a 3- or 4- one, it's impossible to tell from the angle. I think it's a three-naceller, but it is of the same class as either of the two bottom-right ships discussed above?
The ship to the left of the nuCon has a saucer but no obvious nacelles, they could be in shadow, it could be a TOSed Miranda?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
On #4, the possible TOSed Miranda, there's a small light patch exactly where you'd expect the Bussard on the end of a TOS-era nacelle. . .
#1, the closer you look, the less it looks like a Kelvin. What appears to be an upper nacelle looks like it's not high enough above the saucer.
The pylons for the upper nacelles on #2 and #3 look very similar.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
1 looks like a Kelvin style kitbash, but it might have 2 nacelles underneath, I can't make it out.
2 and 3 I think are essentialy the same ship - 4 nacelles with a hoop like support between the nacelles. Cool design.
4 could be the same as 1, or a ship similar in design to the Jem'Hadar attack ship - hard to tell.
5 looks like a Connie.
6 looks like an olive.
I can't tell whats going on with 7! I see a saucer with underslung nacelles (a la Miranda), but what the hell is going on with the third one? If it is a Miranda than the 3rd nacelle looks like it's sticking out of the starboard shuttle bay to me.
8 is pretty funky. Looks like that fanboy fav the Akyazi, with an extra thing beneath (I'd guess like the Kelvins secondary hull lite).
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
2,7, and 8 seem the most interesting to me. I assume that 3 is the same as 2, and shows that maybe the four-nacelled ship actually has both dual nacelles and dual secondary hulls, as 3 has a glowing blue light at the bottom like the deflectors on the Kelvin and Big E. Too me, 7 has all three of its nacelles underneath its saucer, with what I guess are impulse engines tucked between the saucer(more like half saucer?) and the third nacelle. 8 seems to have an oddly shaped saucer with two nacelles and 1 secondary hull and perhaps a rollbar between the nacelles. 1,4,6 are too obscure too make out anything, and 5 appears to be a nu-Connie like Beacon pointed out. Ah, its like Wolf 359 and Sector 001 all over again.
edit:Actually now that I think about it, 3 looks a lot more similar to 8.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
I pointed out the nuConnie first, actually. 2 and 8 are certainly distinct designs, whereas 3 could be a second example of either. In fact, the more I look at it I'm leaning towards 3 and 8 being the same - 3's visible lower nacelle is distinctly shorter than the upper two, like 8's. And something about the foreshortening visible on 2's nacelles makes me think that upper and lower sets are the same length, making it a Constellation/Cheyenne forebear.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
I'm agree that 3 and 8 could be the same design. From the angle we see it at, 3 's lower structure, whether it be a hull, or another nacelle, looks to be centered underneath the ship like 8, whereas 2 certainly looks like it has more than one nacelle/hull hanging off the bottom.
And, I'm not quite sure, but 5 doesn't look like a nuConnie to me. It seems as though the distance between the pylons and the saucer are different. They're too close together. It could easily be the angle we're seeing it at though. It looks like the ship that was "discovered" earlier on by a member of the fandom in a different starbase shot. Perhaps it's the direct forerunner of the nuConnie? With the same arrangement of parts, but slightly different aesthetics and dimensions. Lessons learned from that ship could have lead to the nuConnie.
This is all quite intriguing. Maybe Abrams will be nice, and give us the specs/class info on these ships through the official website, like he has been doing with the crew, and Kelvin.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
Sean - from what I've seen, the nuConnie's nacelles are far closer together than they were in the originals.
As for 3 and 8 being the same, I can see that now it's been pointed out. 3 has red caps to the top bits, suggesting nacelles, while the bottom one is blue - a deflector? I think we've got those sussed.
As for 7, looking closer, the saucer is missing it's rear half (like the FASA Loknar), and the rollbar has the red glowy thing on it.
The roll bar seems to follow the curve of the (missing section of the) saucer. If that's the case, the 3 nacelles are fine below the saucer, with the center one longer and probably slightly lower down than the outriggers. Or in other words, Mars, you seem to be right.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Well thanks Beacon,and sorry Lee.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
No worries.Yes, loking at 7 it almost looks like a Miranda with a third nacelle slung between the main two. The rear of the saucer seems to evoke memories of the added superstructure and/or rollbar present at the rear of the Miranda saucer.
My God, it's 1997 all over again! It's just like our discussions of the FC ships before the Encyclopaedia 2 came out.
I see what people are saying about the nuConnie perhaps NOT being a nuConnie, after all if Steamrunners can be mistaken for Connies (as they were in "A Call to Arms") then any ship with nacelles above and behind the saucer can be.
Posted by Johnny (Member # 878) on :
I don't have the image of the Starbase from the trailer to hand, but didn't that have a ship with a saucer and nacelles attached straight onto it with small pylons?
The possible Connie in this new image probably is just the Enterprise or a sister ship, but I can't make out any secondary hull. Would we be able to see it from this angle, or would it be obscured anyway? Otherwise, those nacelles might be attached somehow to the saucer.
Posted by tricky (Member # 1402) on :
Numpties of the world Unite! Could 7 have underslung nacelles and an even lower Kelvin style hull? Could the blue stripes be a reflection for the station's windows?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Reflections? Interesting idea, but I can't see how it'd work based on the positioning of the candidate light sources. One thing I notice, all three pods on #7 have a bright spot at the rear as well as the glowing lines on the sides; on #8, only the top two pods have the bright spots on the rear (and glowy lines down the sides). Then again, the lower pod on #8 has the same glowing front as the upper pods - but that could more plausibly be reflected light from the station.
Posted by Andru (Member # 2145) on :
Not to spoil anyone's fun, but it seems to me that #8 actually has two lower hulls. If you look at the aft part of the upper port nacelle, there's a bit of dark grey hull right behind the round blue glow patch, not present behind the starboard nacelle. That grey bit looks exactly like the aft part of the visible lower hull, and is positioned about right to be an equivalent starboard lower hull. #8 would be the same kind of half-saucer ship as #2 and possible #3.
Posted by Andru (Member # 2145) on :
oops, I meant "possibly #3".
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
Ginger-I was referring to the distance between the saucer edge and the bussards. Probably could have been a bit clearer on that. Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Andru, I see what you describe. That would make 2,3 and 8 the same half-saucer/dual-nacelle/dual- deflector design.
5 is most likely the Enterprise.
That leaves 1, 4, 6 and 7. I am guessing that 1,4 and 7 are the same design as well, but it's too difficult to tell for sure.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Agreed. IMO - 2, 3 and 8 are all the same design, as are 1, 4, 6 and 7. I'd lump 6 in with the latter design due to its coloration and saucer shape. 2, 3, and 8 probably have twin lower hulls a la Kelvin. I'm wondering if any of those models were detailed enough to be individually labelled...
And hey, let's not forget the starbase itself! Anyone noticed that the central core seems to be one big glass bubble?
Mark
Posted by Andru (Member # 2145) on :
I'm wondering if any of those models were detailed enough to be individually labelled...
I'd say yes to that, earlier in this thread we saw those nice models will become individually labelled wreckage on the other side of the warp jump!
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
I don't know. I'm not convinced by the "no patch behind the upper right nacelle of #8 like there is behind the upper left" argument because of that single little blof of light that is behind the upper right nacelle, which sould easily be the rear part of itself but in shadow. But the more I look t the ship as a whole, the less I like the way the lower nacelle pylon joins to the nacelle - it looks like the left-hand one of a pair. And #3, well, that single visible lower pylon is in the wrong place for a singleton. So I guess I'll go with the prevailing wisdom as it stands. I don't think I can agree with any suggestion that all the other remaining ships (less the suspected Constitution) are the same because you just can't see any details.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mark Nguyen: And hey, let's not forget the starbase itself! Anyone noticed that the central core seems to be one big glass bubble?
Mark
For me, it harkens back to Starfleet HQ as seen in Franz Joseph's Tech Manuel.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
In any case, I'd say JJ and the boys gave Flare something of a present with this shot. Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mars Needs Women: Sorry for double post, but the movie site has posted an image of the New Stardock showing some new designs, though they look kitbashed from the Kelvin and Enterprise.
Okay, they've done it: I really want to see the movie now. Before this I was very leery but now I know it will be a modeler's wet dream even if story, acting and contunity are ground up in favor of explosions and sex scenes.
Posted by Starship Freak (Member # 293) on :
I totally agree with Jason! Who cares about the movie, now we have starships of obscure designs!
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
So... has anyone made schematics of these yet? Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Give it time, someone will.
Posted by OverRon (Member # 2036) on :
I think #3 and #8 are the same type, with two upper nacelles and lower and smaller secondary hull. Which would make the ship look something like this:
(Quick 5-min jobbie, only intended to show how I "see" the general shape of it)
As you can see it fits the 2 views here, although the top nacelles are a little too far apart, but gives the general configuration of the ship.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Excellent work!
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Hehe, done like a true nerd. Posted by Josh (Member # 1884) on :
quote:Originally posted by Andru: I'm wondering if any of those models were detailed enough to be individually labelled...
I'd say yes to that, earlier in this thread we saw those nice models will become individually labelled wreckage on the other side of the warp jump!
I can't imagine them not being so. It was one thing back when TNG was big and models were being done practically not to bother repainting for the sake of a background ship, but with CG models it's not that big of a job to go throw in a name and registry.
Besides, with what I've seen so far, I think the minds behind the film are realizing it's people like the folks at Flare that are going to endlessly pick the film apart that will be a big part of their revenue.
Posted by OverRon (Member # 2036) on :
Was kinda bored with the lack of any decent sci-fi on the TV at the moment, so thought I'd keep myself busy and model that ship till the movie comes out.
(Probably NOT the ships name, registry, or even close to how it actually looks, but whatever)
Posted by Andru (Member # 2145) on :
VERY impressive! In a parallel universe, this would have made for a neat NX-01... But what about the rollbar?
Posted by OverRon (Member # 2036) on :
Well, it's far from finished. No roll bar, secondary hull, basic bridge interior, windows, RCS thrusters, pop-up torpedo launchers (at least that's what I assume they are, as looking at the Kelvin it looks to have traditional phaser ports on it), and so on.
I'm not gonna clutter this thread with WIP stuff so gonna make a new thread over in the design part.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Where's Star Trek the Flame Thrower? It's my favorite.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
The kid's love it.
Don't forget the toilet paper.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Well on the new site, the new Big-E has been officially labeled as a constitution class heavy cruiser.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
I bought one of the new phasers today (OK, this is a starship thread in name, but I'm sure other tech will creep in here as well). Weird. It has the same sort of non-ergonomic feel that the TOS phaser had. I wonder if they were trying to keep to the spirit of the rather-retro pre-TOS/Cage/WNMHGB laser pistol with its swappable barrels (given the film is set pre-TOS, if that's even a consideration in this alternate timeline), but still make it look like what the less-clued-in would think of as a classic phaser?
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Okay, so I saw the movie yesterday (yay!). The spacedock scene went by in a flash, but there are definitely a few good looks at those other ships, before they "KABLAM!" into warp.
- There's at least two very recognizable shapes: the four-nacelled "Double Miranda" (#2 and #3), and a three-nacelled ship (#7). We see these two variants going to warp. - The Double Miranda also appears as the Kobayashi Maru in the simulation. From the glimpses we get, it appears something is going on with her bottom nacelles. Wether it was damage or some extra structures I couldn't tell. - Also in the Kobayashi Maru scenario, we see new Klingon Warbirds. They look very much like the original Klingon D7s, but with more details. - #5 on the image posted is the Enterprise herself. While it is indeed true that the Enterprise is brand new, there is no direct evidence to suggest she's the only ship of this type. In fact, the official website sticks to the "Constitution class" name, and we hear the USS Hood and USS Farragut mentioned in dialog, although there's some indication that the Farragut is an older ship (at least Uhura is a bit miffed that she's assigned to the Farragut instead of the Enterprise). - The wreckage seen over Vulcan are in fact these ships. So one of these must have that massive great saucer.
Posted by Andru (Member # 2145) on :
Extra structures on the Kobayashi Maru: must be tanks for neutronic fuel, surely
Are there any indications that *all* of the ships were destroyed by Nero?
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Yes, all of them, with no apparent survivors.
I'm assuming it includes all the ships named as assignments for cadets, ie the USS Hood, Farragut and others I cannot remember right now.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
To clarify the above: it's mentioned that Starfleet's main forces are tied up in the "Laurentian Sector". The ships at the Earth space station are sent to deal with the Vulcan attack, with a large number of Academy cadets making up the crews. Uhura is initially assigned to USS Farragut, and we hear about a handful of other ships where cadets get assigned too, presumably all to be sent to Vulcan.
Posted by Andru (Member # 2145) on :
So if I get this right, the Farragut and the Hood are destroyed during the defense of Vulcan, along with all of the other ships we glimpse at the space station. The Hood was a Constitution-class in the original timeline, but are there any other Constitutions among the ships at the space station? Was it possible to positively identify the unknown ships discussed previously? I know, I will see by myself in 2 days, I can wait!
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:The Hood was a Constitution-class in the original timeline, but are there any other Constitutions among the ships at the space station?
No, the Hood was a Constitution class ship as of 2267. This movie takes place before that, so this Hood is probably an older class of ship that the Connie Hood will replace. (Especially since the Enterprise is brand-new at this point, the newer Hood will be built after it, since it's registry is NCC-1703).
Or I could be totally wrong.
quote:The wreckage seen over Vulcan are in fact these ships. So one of these must have that massive great saucer.
The ship with the big saucer might be the "Mayflower." And I don't think it's much bigger than the Enterprise's saucer.
Posted by Andru (Member # 2145) on :
Yep, I agree the Hood might be an older class. One could pretend that a new Connie NCC-1703 is about to be commissioned at the time of the movie, and after the Vulcan attack it is decided that it will be named Hood to replace the one that was lost. We'll probably never know for sure either way, unless one of those ships around the station is *actually* labeled Hood.
But then TPTB are no longer bound by the old registry list, they're free to mess it up as much as they want (well ok, it was messy already!)
Isn't it funny that even though the Enterprise is launched about 13 years later in this timeline, her registry is still NCC-1701 Of course, the 2245 original launch date was never really mentioned on screen... Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
We can assume there's at least one other Constitution Class ship in this timeline, namely, the Constitution. Though she's probably on the front lines in whatever conflict is taking up Starfleet's resources.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Well, there's reason to believe that at least the Farragut is an older type of ship. Uhura complains that she isn't assigned to the brand-new Enterprise.
There are no other Enterprise-type ships seen anywhere in the movie, nor is there any statement on whether she's a unique design or not. Yes, it's a new ship, but there's no "flagship" or "best ship in the fleet" classification.
Of course, there's no mention of a Robert April either, so whatever happens in 2233 also delays/changes the whole Constitution project. Considering the infamous 'butterfly effect' of small changes creating big ones, we may never really understand why everything is different by 2258 in the "Neroverse".
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Well technically, there's no mention of Robert April in the TOS timeline either. He only showed up in writers guidelines and the encyclopedia... so we could ignore him if we wanted to.
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
Well, there was that TAS episode...
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I think most will agree that with one or two minor exceptions, TAS can quite easily be totally ignored.
Posted by Andru (Member # 2145) on :
Well *I* don't agree hehe But since this Enterprise seems to have been launched years after the original one, it's likely that April got another command instead, so we don't need to be worried him or his 'canonicity'.
Posted by Andru (Member # 2145) on :
worried ABOUT him, sorry for the typo
Posted by Mirror-Amasov (Member # 742) on :
All right. I'm supposed to write this damn essay for university, but how could I possibly concentrate on that given the fact that tonight's the big night?
Anyway, here's some stuff from the novelization (Orci&Kurtzman are also credited on the front cover, so I guess they at least have *something* to do with it. Since the viral sites and the official site are somewhat of a 'canon bubble', I suppose this falls into the same category).
Page 81: They are giving the assignments of the cadets - Blake - Newton Burke - Starbase 3 Counter - Odyssey Fugeman - Regula One (!) Gerace - Farragut Korax - Drake McCoy - Enterprise McGrath - Potemkin Tel'Peh - Bradbury Davis - Kongo
The big one from the wallpaper is Starbase 1, btw. (p.91)
p 109: While approaching Vulcan, Pike tries to hail Captain Alexander of the Newton, then the Excelsior. 111 gives a good BoBWish moment when we get some names of the tactical display of ships approaching Vulcan: Armstrong, Defiant, Newton, Mayflower and Excelsior. 113, they drop out of warp and the remains of Defiant are right ahead. Do we get a corresponding effects shot in the movie?
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Well, they drop out of warp, and right in the middle of the debris field. The special effects in this movie are really on a whole new level, and we get a really good scene of the Enterprise frantically trying to avoid the saucer they're about slam into. Going by your post that would be the Defiant's saucer, I guess.
I remember the USS Antares from dialog too. And Pike does indeed try to hail the Vulcan fleet, but I'm not sure they mentioned any captain or ship in particular for that. I also remember something like USS Walcott as an assignment.
Posted by Mirror-Amasov (Member # 742) on :
The first block is from the Kirk-assignment-scene, the second one from Uhura's scene.
I was under the impression that there is some sort of tactical display a la Nemesis. When the fleet arrives at Vulcan, the novel mentions how the bridge crew witnesses one dot after another vanishing from the tacical screen and they pick up some distress calls from these ships.
Hey, 8 hours to go. I will try to deliver some new info tonight...
Posted by Mirror-Amasov (Member # 742) on :
So, just returned from the cinema. Not the best Trek movie, but certainly the most enjoyable and the most impressive.
I can confirm that Pike tried to hail the Newton on their way to Vulcan, although no Captain was mentioned. Farragut and Hood, the unrecognizable name you emntioned above, Antares is also mentioned, another one I forgot, plus Pike also mentiones the Truman later on.
We get some good views of the starships, but I did not see the Kobayashi Maru in that one scene - when did it appear? (There were just the Klingon warbirds - btw, since when do we refer to the D7 or whatever that was as a "warbird"? I mean - no objections from me, it would make some sense, but the term Warbird was reserved for the D'Deridex for such a long time.)
One shuttle is the Moore, another one is the Gilliam in the bay scene. The evac med shuttle from the Kelvin is shuttle 37, it seems they have a whole bunch of them - same goes for the Enterprise, they are stored on two levels left and right of the hangar bay doors. Pike uses shuttle 9 (i was hoping for 7 ), but I didn't catch the name. With the Bluray, we should be able to make out some names and registries.
Kirks escape pod is launched from that one spot where the travel pods used to dock, at the neck. We see the photon torpedo launcher in action - blue torpedoes, fired from the neck launcher. Phasers are still pulse weapons as per TOS, but they appear to be red. They use it for some massive barrage against Narada's rocket-things.
They did change the stardate system, first 4 digits indicate the year, last two digits probably indicate the day. I never cared for the old system, it gave me headaches. The jellyfish's computer gives its lauch date, it was 2378, IIRC. Or 87? It did correspond with the Countdown timestamp, I just mention it because this means the 24th century (the unaltered timeline) obviously uses that system now, too. Maybe it a civilian thing and the 5-digit-stardate is exclusive to Starfleet. Maybe they think it makes them look smarter, having a stardate system that no one really gets besides them.
Some nice shots of Vulcan, that one wallpaper where you see the city of Shir'Kahr is *not* the whole thing. The camera pans up and you see some more skyscrapers hanging from one of the large cliffs or rock overhangs or whatever you could call it. Really impressive, but hard to describe.
And Pike in wheelchair! But just a regular one, Professor-X-style, no beeping folks. Maybe next time... (Nero used a Ceti Eel on poor Pike to get the codes of Starfleet's defense grid for his attack on earth. *But* he didn't give him the small babies but the big thing instead, right through the mouth. Creepy stuff...)
47 Klingon ships were lost when Nero did his stuff along the Neutral Zone, where he was lying in wait for Spock Prime to show up. We don't see it, just get the info from Uhura.
Edit: Just fyi, they referred to the Kobayashi Maru as 'USS'.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
quote:(There were just the Klingon warbirds - btw, since when do we refer to the D7 or whatever that was as a "warbird"? I mean - no objections from me, it would make some sense, but the term Warbird was reserved for the D'Deridex for such a long time.)
Seriously.. that's a whole thread unto itself. You can basically blame STIII for assigning a "Bird of Prey" to the Klingons, and then Braga for planting the erroneous phrase "Klingon warbirds" in "Broken Bow". Back when all this was fields, and everything was better, Romulans had bird-like ships, Klingons had battlecruisers. Now, Romulans have Valdores that look like Klingon ships, and Klingons have Raptors and Warbirds. Meh.
- The Kobayashi Maru, or at least a Federation starship, can briefly be glimpsed through the simulated viewscreen, behind the 2-3 warbirds.
- Yeah, I got the sense that these ships are quite significantly larger than the originals. At least its implied that the Kelvin carries enough shuttles to succesfully evac 800 crew, and there's a shuttlecraft 98 (or 89) mentiones somewhere. Definitely more than 4-5 shuttles on the Enterprise.
- 2387, I think. It fits with the Countdown comics and the Star Trek Online "Path to 2409".
- I believe the "Klingon battle" was once planned to be seen, probably the reason they designed a new Klingon ship.
Posted by Mirror-Amasov (Member # 742) on :
What kind of designation is "Bird of Prey" or "Warbird" anyway? A nickname? A type designation like "heavy cruiser"? We better skip that discussion...
I'll have a closer look at 'behind the exploding fleet of Klingon ships' next time I watch it. But really - on the screen for two seconds, barely visible, possibly blurred? Sounds like the BoBW graveyard to me. They should release the film on VHS tape, for old times' sake.
I'm not sure about the size. When the shuttle passed the dish (first shot of this new trailer ), I had the same feeling. On the other hand, there's this one shot where the camera zooms out of the main screen/window and we get a pretty good impression of the bridge and dome size and everything. Should be possible to get some size information out of that lateron. The 800 figure included families and civilians. The ship didn't strike me as particularely family-friendly. Maybe the were on a mission to deliver those guys somewhere?
Aren't you confusing the Klingon battle with Nero's escape from Rura Penthe? I'm not sure about any fleet action, but if it did include some, they better put it back in the movie for the DVD release...
Another thing was Delta Vega; I heard some complains that it's now a planet or a moon in the Vulcan system, for some reason. I found the Delta Vega reference somewhat strange in that context (seemed to be random name-dropping; which wouldn't make sense. Those who 'get' it also know where DV is located, those who don't recognize the name probably wouldn't care of they'd given it any other name). But it could be close-by, maybe somewhere in the sector. Why would Starfleet have a remote outpost on a moon within the Vulcan system? Spock 'seeing' the explosion of Vulcan on the other hand gave me that distinct Intrepid-vibe. Maybe it was some sort of vision, he mentioned 6 billion dying; clearly that should have a severe effect on him when he already noticed the death of 400.
Posted by Andru (Member # 2145) on :
Ok I've seen the movie now so here are a few more snippets of information...
There are 20 shuttles evacuating the Kelvin crew, give or take one (and including medical shuttle 37). One more is the shuttle used by Robau to get on the Narada, it bears NCC-0514 and the number 3 but I'm not sure this is the complete registry. As far as I can tell, all of the Kelvin's shuttles are of the same model.
Nero (or one of his minions) says there are 7 Starfleet ships converging on Vulcan, likely this doesn't include the Enterprise as it will be mentioned later as 'another ship approaching' or something to that effect.
Scotty's dirty shuttle on Delta Vega also has a registry, it's 78072 if I remember correctly.
Robau gives stardate as 223304 (no period), Kirk gives 2258.42, the Jellyfish computer states 'commissioned stardate 2387' but that's not much of a stardate if you ask me.
I'm not sure if I heard correctly, but there's maybe a ship Helios named just before the Truman? Or was that just 'USS'?
The fleet scene at Spacedock (not called Starbase 1 in the movie, alas) is very short and with the shaky camera, flares and all it's quite difficult to make out the details of the other starfleet ships. I think I saw a proto-Miranda there among the other kitbashes, a saucer with two nacelles under.
That's all I can think of right now!
Posted by Andru (Member # 2145) on :
Here is my best take on what I heard during the assignment call, probably far removed from the real thing!
(male commander voice)
???, ??? (no idea here) Blake, USS Farragut McCoy, USS Enterprise Brad??, USS Walcott?? Vader??!, USS Hood Welcome to Starfleet, Godspeed!
(further on, female voice)
???, ??? (no idea) ???, USS Hood Uhura, USS Farragut ??ski, USS Antares Go to your stations and good luck.
Later on, Pike tries to hail the Truman and possibly another ship (Helios??)
I’m sure you guys have caught it better, I’m looking forward to your input! I have a mediocre sound clip of that scene (for research purposes!), I can share it if it's of any use.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Oh, yeah, I can add that since I'm Dutch, I saw a subtitled version, with all the assignment ships spelled out. I do seem to remember it as "Walcott" indeed, which seems to be a city in Iowa. Seems we've traded in all the Bozeman, Montana references with Iowa references
Waitaminute.. did he say Godspeed to Starfleet cadets? That's a bit.. awkard.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
The only ship names I heard were Enterprise, Hood, Farragut, Truman, and Antares (although I thought I heard "Centaurus," but I'm probably wrong.
Keep in mind that there were only seven ships (not including the Enterprise). It corresponds to the photo (which was actually a scene in the movie), minus the small support ships. So the ships must have been:
Also, the Kobayashi Maru scene with the Klingon ships and the KM went by so fast I couldn't concentrate on the ships. Therefore, I can't remember what they all looked like.
As stated before, the two clearest Starfleet vessels in the fleet were the three-nacelled ship and the four-nacelled/two-nacelled-two-engineering hulled ship, before they go to warp. They're seen from the rear, so no name/registry could be seen.
Posted by Mikey T (Member # 144) on :
Well considering I've seen the movie 3 times now, I did like it as a film... as a Trekkie I'm still pissed off about loosing two planets.
*edit by CC: Huge images break tables. Please, won't you think about the tables?!*
[ May 12, 2009, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: Charles Capps ]
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Wait.. are all those props from the new movie? If so, then what are the two other phasers and communicators? Kelvin-era?
Posted by Mikey T (Member # 144) on :
Yep, that TOS communicator was what Kirk's mother was holding. The Phaser was used also in that scene.
Posted by Starship Freak (Member # 293) on :
Perhaps links instead to images that large?
Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
Very neato. Lee is gonna have a field day. Thanks for posting the ship model too. I have been avoiding spoilers 'til I could see the movie. Didn't realize you got to be a cadet, Mikey. Thats so cool!
Saw this over at SciFi Wire which I found kind of interesting:
quote:How ILM came up with the new Enterprise for J.J. Abrams' Trek
Artists at Industrial Light & Magic, who worked with Star Trek director J.J. Abrams to come up with the new design for the iconic starship Enterprise, said that Abrams' directive was simple.
"He wanted a hot-rod type of vehicle, but they also wanted to preserve the Enterprise kind of look," model maker John Goodson said in a presentation at ILM's San Francisco headquarters earlier this month.
"J.J. Abrams kept saying, 'Make it a bigger movie. Make it a bigger shot,'" creative director David Nakabayashi added. "I think that's one thing you see in this film, at least: The stuff I've seen is just everything is big."
Following is an edited version of the designers' talk. Star Trek opens May 8.
Goodson: It was really interesting working with J.J. for this ship. They gave us a lot of latitude to kind of play with it. They had some specific ideas of what they wanted. He wanted a hot-rod type of vehicle, but they also wanted to preserve the Enterprise kind of look. They gave ILM a tremendous amount of leeway in terms of the design. ... It's got this sweeping line that's kind of giving it this real hot-rod kind of car feel. It's ILM's job to sort of take this and start to flesh this thing out and make it more real and convey the scale and all those things that you need, so it's just a leaping-off point for us. ...
How updated is the Enterprise?
Roger Guyett, visual effects supervisor: When I was a kid—when I bought toys or when I built things—I always wanted stuff to move. And one thing that frustrated me about the original Enterprise was that nothing moves on it. It was just a very static thing. ...
I don't know how familiar you are with all of the terminology of the Enterprise, but there is a main hull, which is the big disk. There is a secondary hull, which is a tube, and then you have two engines. And at the front of the bottom sort of cylinder there is this thing called the "collection plate" [aka the navigational deflector, in Trek parlance]. We made ours move, so it actually sort of comes out, and it grows, and you can move it around. We just made the whole thing much more contemporary.
And also when the ship goes into warp—of course, we had to create our version of warp, too, but you'll see the fins actually split apart slightly. So it goes into kind of like a warp mode, and from my perspective, all of those things add a level of interest and ... design to the whole process and make it so much more fun to work on every aspect of the process of the Star Trek world.
When you are on the Enterprise, you got to see a lot of the Enterprise. You can set different moments in the movie and different places— ... the engineering room or corridor or medical bay—so that you feel the enormous extent of the Enterprise. ...
Goodson: On the original TV show Enterprise, there were some patterns that were on the bottom. There's a rectangle and a circle and a T shape, and there's these big geometric forms, and I always try to sneak them in when I can, and I got to put them on this ship, too. It kind of connects us back to the original TV series a little bit. It's a subtle thing, but it does actually bridge those two ships together. ...
The pattern on the saucer is what we've always referred to as "aztec," which is what it's always been called, and that dates back to Star Trek: The Next Generation, and we wanted to pull that in on this ship and make it very subtle.
One of the things about the [Star Trek: The] Motion Picture Enterprise that was really cool for a practical model is they used the type of paint called "interference paint." This paint has little tiny [mica] prisms in it, and when you look at it from one angle, it would be red, but if you walked across the room to look at it from the other side, it appears green. There's gold and blue. There are a variety of colors you can get from this paint, and they painted the Motion Picture Enterprise with this paint. In the beginning of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, they've got, like, 20 minutes of the camera scrolling over the ship looking at all the stuff, and you see these very subtle iridescent effects.
We wanted to put that into this ship [for 2009], so we played around with some of the shaders and created, in the [digital] paint, these colored maps that look like Wonder Bread wrappers almost. Where one map would have red, the other map would have green in exactly the same spot. Where it would be blue on one map, it would be gold on the other map. What this would do, as the model moved through the virtual light, depending on where the light hit it, would affect the color. So we would get that same kind of effect that they had on the practical model in the digital model ...
Even though this technology is all fictitious, we spend a lot of time talking about it and trying to make sense out it so that when you're doing something on the ship, like putting a door in or something like that, it sort of makes sense. We'll spend a lot of time going around and around looking at it and trying to work out what you would expect to see. Even though it's all fictitious, what would you really want to see?
Did something in particular inspire you to create the newest Enterprise?
Goodson: A lot of it was going back to the older ships and drawing inspiration from those to kind of bridge the gap for continuity, because it's a whole new vision of Star Trek, but at the same time you want to bring some of those older elements into it, because Star Trek's been around for over 40 years now. You just want to preserve some of that look integrated in with the new thing. I think that was the driving thing for me, was just being able to pull the old stuff in with the new and connect them together.
Posted by Andru (Member # 2145) on :
collection plate...
I don't get it, where's Ryan Church? They make it sound like ILM not only built the ship, but also designed it. I wouldn't boast if I were them.
Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
Yeah, where are all the Ryan Church interviews? Found this on TrekMovie.com
quote: Big Reaction To New Enterprise - New Designer Responds
The new USS Enterprise released yesterday has spawned dozens if not hundreds of articles across the globe in the mainstream press and the geekosphere. Reaction here at TrekMovie has been running at one comment every 49 seconds for 24 hours straight. In that deluge are a few notables, including former Star Trek designer Rick Sternbach and the designer of the new ship, Ryan Church.
Sternbach and Church on the new E Rick Sternbach was a senior illustrator and designer for the Trek franchise going all the way back to star Trek The Motion Picture, working mostly on the TV series in the TNG era (Next Gen, DS9 and Voyager). He designed dozens of Trek ships and stations, including Deep Space Nine, the Klingon Vor’cha battle cruise, the USS Voyager, and the USS Enterprise C.
I get the distinct impression that to do the nacelles and secondary hull, someone stared at the USS Pasteur for a while. Just a thought. But even the Pasteur’s Bussard collectors had line of sight to open space, which the nacelles on this new ship don’t seem to have. Perhaps the designers didn’t know exactly how the different hardware bits worked (I violated this rule a little here and there, but I knew when I was doing it). Now I’m not being a whiner, just an informed critic. There’s room in this Trek world for healthy design criticism, as well as simply sitting back and enjoying a well made SF film. I -hope- the film is well written and clever and has good proportions of action, humor, tech, etc. but I’m also prepared to analyze the design work to see, perhaps, how far the shapes and colors and functions stray from 40 years of evolved gear.
This and the many other comments got the notice of the designer of the new Enterprise, Ryan Church, who has worked on the Star Wars prequels, the Transformers movies and the new James Cameron film Avatar. Church wrote in the TrekMovie comments:
I’m not going to get involved in the mud slinging, here, but needed to assure you guys and gals: we’ve built you a fine ship. To clarify: there’s a slight optical illusion occurring here, consequence of the “camera” angle. For Rick and others who worry the nacelles don’t have a clear line of sight over the disc — they, in fact, do. We were hardly working in a vacuum. I raided ILM reference photos like a madman. We were deferential to “inviolates” of Star Trek design vocabulary. Additionally, the profile here isn’t 100% representative, because, as you’ve noticed, the Bussards are dimmed. The true profile of the nacelles may or may not be revealed here, and that’s all I’ll say.
Sternbach replied back, noting that he has since had a chance to see a new angle of the Enterprise (lucky Rick!)
I went back and checked the Bussard clearance, and yeah, it works. I’ve seen a port side ortho[graphic] elevation, and I don’t have a problem with the mechanics of it, it’s the proportions and flows of the basic parts that look odd to me. Granted, no ship ever looks perfect in every ortho view, nor in every perspective view. We who have done this stuff in our sleep know that most vehicle and prop designs have their “best” faces. I’m not going to bore people with excerpts from my classical art and architecture books, though I will probably thumb through them here just to see if I can glean anything relevant. Like I said, I’ll wait to see how the film looks as a whole effort.
Which all just goes to show you that even the pros can take different views and even modify their views, especially when given more information. So far we have only two views of the new Enterprise and we have yet to see it in motion, that is worth considering.
Fan comparisons and mods One of the great things about TrekMovie.com is our community of Trekkies and their creativity. Here are some comparison and modification images from our members (click to enlarge).
...
And this for a little fun The current poll shows that fans are split on the new Enterprise, with a bit over half ‘loving it’ or ‘mostly liking it.’ Although less than 1 out of 5 are voting that they don’t like it, it appears that some of that group are quite vocal to be sure. Our pal Spockboy Paul also put together this little video that encapsulates some of those fans reaction to the new Enterprise
Note on new image: it is not in the trailer The new image released this week of the USS Enterprise is not a shot from the trailer. The Enterprise is seen clearly in the trailer being constructed and also going to warp. It may also be seen briefly in some of the quick cut battle scenes, but the specific shot released yesterday from Paramount is from a different point in the film.
Posted by Mikey T (Member # 144) on :
Next time there's an open casting call, I want to be that red shirt standing on the bridge. If I get killed, at least I'll have visible screen time.
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
Mikey, you were a cadet extra? A friend of mine was one as well, she got to sit next to McCoy in the trial scene. You can spot here pretty clearly in one quick shot and in some other shots if you look closely.
Posted by Mikey T (Member # 144) on :
Corporate Headquarters had the open call on Nov 2007 near my favorite Cuban bakery in Burbank... my sister text messaged me so I walked one block down and was perfect I guess... I look alien as it is.
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
Excellent. I'm just down the road in North Hollywood these days. Sadly, I didn't get here in time for casting on this movie, but you better believe I'll be around for the next one.
And which bakery are you referring too? Portos?
Meanwhile, on topic, I loved the film quite a bit, but the production design not so much.
To me, it felt like what somebody would think Star Trek was like if all they had seen was Galaxy Quest. And somebody who watched Space Mutiny and thought the whole "warehouse as the bowels of a ship thing" was a good idea.
Posted by Mikey T (Member # 144) on :
Yes, it was Portos. It was literally two mins from me having pastries and standing in line for 4 hours with about 2,000 people there.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
And pretty much everyone on Drexler's blog is saying that the scaling is completely wrong and may be based on false or incorrect information.
Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
Seems like we'd have some pretty good scale indications from when the ship is planetside, or even from that trailer with the welders. Ship didn't seem THAT large, even in IMAX.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
True, seemed just as large as the original connie.
Posted by Andrew (Member # 2160) on :
Posted by Andrew (Member # 2160) on :
I caught that "Vader, USS Hood" assignment too. Sounds like a quick, funny nod to "Star Wars". Along with a few other nods and borrowings here and there.
quote:Originally posted by Andru: Here is my best take on what I heard during the assignment call, probably far removed from the real thing!
(male commander voice)
???, ??? (no idea here) Blake, USS Farragut McCoy, USS Enterprise Brad??, USS Walcott?? Vader??!, USS Hood Welcome to Starfleet, Godspeed!
(further on, female voice)
???, ??? (no idea) ???, USS Hood Uhura, USS Farragut ??ski, USS Antares Go to your stations and good luck.
Later on, Pike tries to hail the Truman and possibly another ship (Helios??)
I’m sure you guys have caught it better, I’m looking forward to your input! I have a mediocre sound clip of that scene (for research purposes!), I can share it if it's of any use.
Posted by OverRon (Member # 2036) on :
I tried to do some scaling with the trailer image and that pic on gizmodo. Unless my numbers are waaaaaay off (quite possible), then the new E is huge, even bigger than the 725m stated on a few sites.
Assuming the viewscreen/window is 2m tall (and it could be anywhere between 1.8m and 2.5m I reckon), then it would make the saucer around 86.8m high, at least on the trailer picture. Taking that 86.8 to the Gizmodo profile view, gives you a length of around 921.3m! That's ridiculously sized!
Also tried scaling it a bunch of other ways, like using the neck life pod port. Depending on the numbers I use to guestimate various things, the length comes out at between 409m and 624m!
Posted by Mirror-Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Keep in mind that picture above is "curved", meaning that it is not a plane scematics-like front view but its distorted. The central axis is further away from the p.o.v., therefore is appears smaller. Maybe you can use a window of the front-end of the saucer for comparison. Additionally, I don't know how accurate the schematic is. Isn't that the one from Bernd? You're basing your estimate on a 2m-window. Even a small variation in the schematic could lead to huge discrepancies. For now, I have no idea how large the E is, but it is supposed to be as large as the original E, I guess. There's no evidence that that would suggest anything else. Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
I don't think that the size is all that bad, considering the massive cavern shown on the Alt-E. The massive amounts of water, for example, would take up more volume than that of the TOS-E used for it. I seem to remember a mention of the sonic showers, but it could be from a book, so not really canon.
The engineering section is another give away as to the shear volume of the Alt-E, when compared to the TOS-E.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
I saw it today. Not sure what I think yet. I found out about that Kelvin phaser a few days ago but haven't had a chance to add it to the page yet. If I even bother - I didn't even spot it in the film.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I guess another thing the presence of the MASSIVE Romulan vessel did... Starship designers were like... "hmmm we have to build our ships BIG! Like they do in the future!" Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
But then the Kelvin wasn't exactly puny, with its 20+ shuttles and 800+ crew/passenger manifest.
Posted by Mirror-Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Maybe someone should ask the guys at ILM how big the ship is. They seem to be quite meticulous when it comes to details such as the lengths of particular starships. And while you're at it, please also ask them how long the Defiant, Enterprise-E, Borg cube and Phoenix are. Thank you. Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I haven't read through all 13 pages of this thread, and maybe people consider Memory Alpha to be a big evil...thingie, but according to their entry for this ship:
* A very precise length of 2379.75 feet (725.35 meters) is stated in a Gizmodo blog entry. A note of thanks is given to "David B. from Bad Robot Productions".
* ILM model supervisor Bruce Holcomb states that the Enterprise is "2000 feet [600 meters]" long in an interview for Studio Daily.
* The Post Magazine article 'Star Trek' Returns gives an overall length of "3,000 feet [900 meters]".
* The following specifications can be found during the Enterprise Tour: o Length: 2500 feet [760 meters]. o Saucer Diameter: 1100 feet [340 meters]. o Ship Height: 625 feet [190 meters]. "
So, yes, it really is that massive. And inconsistent. Ladies and gentleman, it's the USS Defiant for the 21st century.
Posted by Mikey T (Member # 144) on :
Joy... I guess the ship has replicators as well to build a fleet of shuttles like Voyager and countless redshirts to expend. I want to see the crew quarters, especially for the officers now as I think Kirk has his decorated like Baltar's harem.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Blame Star Wars... I mean REALLY - what the hell is in most of the Death Star or the Super Star Destroyer? I reckon it's just packed full of wigs.
The Defiant showed us that you didn't need a massive ship to make a massive impact.
Infact now that I think about it - what was the D'Deridex class Warbird filled with? Or that massive Jem'Hadar battle cruiser?
At least people like Rick Sternbach and Mike Okuda THINK about what goes on inside the ships and what they are used for.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: Blame Star Wars... I mean REALLY - what the hell is in most of the Death Star or the Super Star Destroyer? I reckon it's just packed full of wigs.
The Defiant showed us that you didn't need a massive ship to make a massive impact.
Then there's always that certain blue box...
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: Blame Star Wars... I mean REALLY - what the hell is in most of the Death Star or the Super Star Destroyer? I reckon it's just packed full of wigs.
The Defiant showed us that you didn't need a massive ship to make a massive impact.
Infact now that I think about it - what was the D'Deridex class Warbird filled with? Or that massive Jem'Hadar battle cruiser?
At least people like Rick Sternbach and Mike Okuda THINK about what goes on inside the ships and what they are used for.
Gnomes. or halflings. fucking millions of hin, all wanting to bed your lovers, doing evil...'
oh, fuck. just gnomes, guys. the ships are full of gnomes (since it takes 3 halflings to run the tholian ships...)
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
They're filled with Lucas' ego.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
I am working on correlating some scaling images using hi-rez caps, I just don't have any to share yet. One thing I will say is that assuming a deck height of approximately three meters and assuming the widest portion of the saucer section is two decks high, you do wind up in with a length in the neighborhood of 300 meters (between 290 and around 371 depending on how many decks you think she ought to have and making some allowance for outer hull thickness.)
I've seen the movie a few times now and concur on the 300 meters or so length-
-The shuttlebay seems exactly the same as on the Kelvin -and may even use the same CGI files.
-The big scale reference is the shot where they pan out of a bridge window- that definitely scales at 300(ish) meters. Screengrabs!
-The "weapons balls" that are in place of the phaser mounts match those on the Kelvin, at the same distance from the bridge and everything- a larger saucer would make the (standardized?) wepons balls look much smaller.
-Bernd points out that the docking ports on a 300 meter ship would be only 1.5 meters tall but we did not see them used as docking ports at all, rather the side "docking port" was used as an escape pod launcher- the pod was popped out like a torpedo and only held on person- leading me to believe the port is more torpedo-hatch sized, rather than docking port sized. Maybe this represents a bouy launcher of some kind, or possibly the new Enterprise has rows of escape pods in the "neck" that get rapidly launched away from the ship in case of evacuation.
-And if the Enterprise is 700 meters long then the Narada (a mining ship) is 6000 meters long or larger- dwarfing even a Tactical Cube. Kinda overkill for a mining ship, dontcha think?
BUT IT'S AN ILM MOVIE: I dont know when ILM got so sloppy but there are a LOT of scaling errors in this movie- the scene where the shuttles first take off from Earth and fly by the Enterprise scales the ship at 1000 plus meters long! Seriously, that's just assinine.
The Kelvin's entire secondary hull must be assigned to shuttles- Kirk's wife escapes on Medical Shuttle 35! Even if 35 is the total number of shuttles on board, they have to fill that entire secondary hull!
[ May 20, 2009, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: Jason Abbadon ]
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
If I remember correctly, Engineering was also in the Kelvin's secondary hull. Probably the same as Enterprise (It actually looked like a similar set too)
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
What is with those beams that make a "V" blocking most of the shuttlebay entrance?!!?
Talk about a poorly designed means of egress! Why even have the landing marks if the inbound shuttle must be 5 meters above them to clear those beams?!?
Er...a saucer, with two ventral hung secondary hulls, two dorsal nacelles and a rollbar between the nacelles with what might be a torpedo pod.
OooooKaaay.
Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
So... Looking for jobs is boring and frustrating. Practicing graphic design skills however... So I kind of refuse to let the Enterprise be 700 meters long. And to this end have been doing some scaling research.
I mentioned above trying out the deck height thing:
Again this is assuming a deck height of 3m, and that the outer rim of the saucer section comprises two decks. I found a pretty good fit with the windows with a length around 311m. This results in an Enterprise with 20 decks. The shuttle bay remains problematic, as do some of the interiors.
For further verification I used some HD screen caps from the trailers to count some pixels. In that gorgeous shot with Kirk riding out to look at the Enterprise construction, there is a lot going on. Including some teensy-tiny workers out there on the scaffolding.
I started by measuring the height of the workers, and then an adjacent feature, in this instance: the radius of the bottom of the saucer and the height of the nacelle. Assuming an average human height of 1.78 m, that put the radius around 66 m, and the height around 24 m. Back to the drawing:
Which results in an Enterprise remarkably close to the original at 295 m. 19 Decks. This seems a tad dinky to me (especially considering all the shuttles we've got to cram in there!). The numbers I've come up with are hardly set in stone and of course there's ample room for error. But I do think this does tend to support the idea of our new Enterprise being a lot closer to the 300 meters than to the 700 m Monsterprise.
Posted by Mikey T (Member # 144) on :
I see they made their own version of the Miranda Class... Space Seed anyone?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
. . . 2, 3 and 8 are quad-nacelles, 1, 4 and 7 are the tri-nacelles, 5 is the Enterprise and it's pretty-much impossible to tell what 6 is, correct?
Posted by Andru (Member # 2145) on :
And they aren't all nacelles, some of those are secondary hulls. Which is kinda ugly, really. Did we see these ships from the front? I'd assume each engineering hull has a deflector on the Morondas?
Posted by Johnny (Member # 878) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mikey T: I see they made their own version of the Miranda Class... Space Seed anyone?
Or Star Trek 12?
(I modified it a bit to make it more Miranda-ish)
quote:Originally posted by Andru: Amazingly, 4 is just a shuttle... see here:
#4 definitely looks like a fullsize starship, to me. There's a saucer and at least one nacelle of a similar size to the other ships. Which image there shows it looking like a shuttle?
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
#5 is the Enterprise, obviously.
#'s 1, 4, and 6 seem to be the same design: the Kelvin-type saucer, but with newer nacelles under the saucer. One of these ships might be the "Mayflower."
#7 is the three-nacelled ship.
Here's where it gets tricky: #'s 2, 3, and 8 seem to be the two nacelled/two secondary hulled ships. However, the angles kind of almost look like they all have distinctions. #2 looks like it actually has four nacelles, and that they almost look like they're thinner in the front and get wider in the back, as opposed to the Kelvin-type nacelles that start thick and get thinner at the ends. #3 looks like the standard design, but #8 looks like it only has one secondary hull, unless the other one is hidden behind a nacelle.
Of course, the Kelvin-type ships may have distinctions as well, since the lens flares make it impossible to see them clearly. For all we know, all the eight ships might be different in one way or another.
Thoughts?
Posted by Andru (Member # 2145) on :
My mistake about #4, sorry... There is one shuttle in the last frame that looks like a docked ship, but #4 is not one.
By the way, in this frame, there's a shuttle bearing #43, I reckon it's Robau's shuttle?
Posted by OverRon (Member # 2036) on :
Well after having seen the movie, and looking at the schematic there, I'm now thinking that all 3 of the ships (2, 3, and 8) are the same 2 nacelle, 2 secondary hull class. Not the 2 nacelle and 1 secondary hull that I thought before.
Quick mock-up of the 2 nacelle, 2 secondary hull class and how it would line with the ships seen at the station.
I'd love to see some good schematics of these ships made from the blu-ray when it comes out.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
I don't know, #8 still looks like it has one secondary hull to me.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
And #2 has bumps on the ends of the nacelles, that none of the other ships have.
I'd also like to know what those small support ships look like. Man, this is FC all over again! Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Guys, may I say that THIS is why Flare is THE place for impossibly detailed ship discussion and reconstruction!
Daaaamn- Bernd need to place ALL this on his site-BX's deck breakdows in particular!
Also, if the NuPrise is 700 meters long, Spacedock is larger than the Borg Unimatrix. That I cannon- WILL NOT accept.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Well here's a nice drawing of the Jellyfish and Narada by Ryan Church.
Looks better than the final product.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
That concept drawing addresses my major gripe abuout the NuPrise- the Bussard collectors. Someone Photoshopped the old (enlarged) Connie's Bussards onto thenew design and I though it looked rather sharp (if cartoony). Like something that would have existed in "Phase II".
Something I need to mention as really REALLY odd: It seems that the new ship has all the small hatches that the Refit has- you know, those small single-man elevators for evac work- and it seems that...they all fire weapons.
Yes, it's dumb but there's precedent for this: the same hatches on the Constellation have single-turrett Phasers added on. (making the Constellation just as tough as an Excelsior in a fight, but I digress).
Posted by Akula (Member # 319) on :
Was just going to mention that 8 looks like a standard 2 nacelle 2 secondary hull to me. In fact if you look carefully you can even see the shuttle bay of the second secondary hull behind the closest nacelle.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Now that you mention it, yes, you're right. I see it too. So #3 and #8 are in fact the same class, and #2 may be as well, but again the nacelles look a bit different to me.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Could it just be that #2's running lights just happened to blink at the instant the frame was grabbed?
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
No, I don't think so. In these grabs, there are three different spacedock scenes, and the bumps are in all three:
5 miles long for the Narada? Whatever.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Indeed, these people obviously have no idea what they're doing in terms of scaling.
Posted by Andru (Member # 2145) on :
On the other hand, 30 feet for the shuttle (but which one?) sounds about right.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
Looks like the movie goers weren't the only ones who had a problem with the lens flares. According to the article, they were a huge pain in the rear for the FX companies as well.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
I thought it would be fun to post a conclusion to my original analysis from the opening post.
1. The U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701, Constitution Class. This new take on the venerable old Enterprise was designed by Ryan Church, who is best known for his work on the Star Wars prequels. Because it seems that this Enterprise is brand-new once Pike takes command and Kirk is serving as a cadet, this implies that any other Starfleet vessel shown will be an older design.
Yes, the Enterprise was brand-new. Yes, it was the only design of its kind in the movie. But...it's 3,000 feet...wait, it's 2,500 feet...no, it's 2,000 feet...wrong again! It's 2,357 feet Gentlemen, it's the Defiant for the 21st century.
2. The U.S.S. Kelvin NCC-0514, class unknown. The ship that Kirk's father served on twenty years ago. The ship consists of a flat saucer section, with a secondary hull above and a very large nacelle below. The ship is supposed to be smaller than the Enterprise, but probably not by much. Pike is rumored to have quoted to Kirk that his father saved 800 people during the Kelvin's "accident." Does this mean that the Kelvin had a crew complement of 800 or even more than that?
The Kelvin's class remains unknown. It did indeed have a crew of over 800 people. And it was probably much bigger in size than what was previously thought.
3. Other 23rd century Federation starships. I was less than thrilled to hear that they hired John Eaves to be the principle ship designer for this movie (sans the Enterprise), since I dislike his work because all his designs look the same regardless of race, organization, or time period that the ships belong. I'm hoping that at least with both the Enterprise and the Kelvin designs, he'll try to stick close to those aesthetics. With that said, we know at least that other Starfleet vessels will be shown, because they appeared destroyed over Vulcan in the trailer. These ships were part of the "Vulcan rescue fleet" to which the Enterprise also belongs, so it's reasonably certain we'll see them in their pre-destroyed state. We do see that the wreckage consists mainly of saucers and nacelles (or perhaps engineering sections, since the nacelles seem to be as large as they are. We definitely see one intact ship at the space station, although it is very small. It seems to consist of a small saucer with two nacelles attached to upward-pointing pylons.
First, let me start by apologizing for my negative comment about John Eaves' work. His blog gave me a better understanding of the design process in ST and why his designs tend to look the same...and anyway, he only designed shuttles in the movie. As for the ships, there are seven other vessels besides the Enterprise and the Kelvin (and the Kobayashi Maru), with at least three different classes total. But again, we don't know any class names.
4. Romulan starships (24th century). I'm assuming that any Romulan ships we will see will originate in the 24th century, or whatever future point in time Nero comes from. It is not at all certain that the "Narada" space-octopus thing is actually a Romulan ship. There is a description of the ship Nero actually uses to tether to Vulcan: "all angles, with chains drooping off the sides."
The Narada was a Romulan mining vessel, basically the Romulan equivalent of Red Dwarf, although it looks nothing like a Romulan ship. Obviously the above description was just bad hearsay. It is the only Romulan vessel from any era to appear.
5. Klingon starships. Since Nero is apparently being held prisoner on the Rura Penthe of the 24th century, and Anton Yelchin is quoted as saying that there are Klingon ships on the screen (possibly during Kirk's Kobayashi Maru test), it seems we may see Klingon vessels from both time periods. JJ Abrams said that there was a whole plot thread involving Klingons that he had to cut for story reasons. Hopefully the deleted scenes will be on the DVD release.
Klingon "warbirds" do appear in the KM scenario, and look remarkably like D7's. However, the scene where 47 warbirds were destroyed by Nero was cut. I'm guessing they were all the same type as the KM versions.
6. 24th century starships. So far, the only known 24th century vessel is old Spock's Vulcan time ship. I was sincerely hoping that old Spock came from far enough in the future that if there were any scenes there, the Enterprise-F would be shown. That would have been a great symbol of how long the Enterprise's legacy would have lasted to the average movie viewer. But that probably won't happen.
It didn't. The only 24th century ship (besides the Narada) was Spock's ship. Based just on the movie, the ship was of Vulcan origin, but described only as their "fastest ship." No "time core" as was previously stated, since it's not a timeship. It also has no name.
7. Other ships. If Trek history is to be followed, we may get to see the actual Kobayashi Maru freighter. Plus, there will be shuttles, escape pods, etc. that will or have already been shown.
Saw the KM, and it looked remarkably like a well-known fan design of the ship. Also, besides two or three types of shuttles, there were small support ships docked at the space station, which looked like small starships too. Hopefully we'll see all of these ships soon in future publications. Posted by Captain Untouchable (Member # 2161) on :
I've been reading through this thread for a good hour or so now, and feel like some kind of creepy stalker for perving on all your thoughts in secret, so I figured I'd sign up and chime in.
I'm still in the "not quite convinced" camp regarding #8. I've taken a look at the perspective shots people have done: its just that those engineering hulls are so damn fat that you'd expect to see *some* sign of the starboard hull behind the port nacelle. I'm just not seeing any indication of it there. I guess it makes sense to accept it as one of the 2-2 designs though; I can't see the logic in Starfleet having ships that are almost identical, aside from the number of pods hanging off the bottom.
So yeah; I guess 1=4=7, and 2=3=8.
I've been doing some pondering over what the ships might be; whether they're completely new designs, or bastardised versions of existing concepts. Presumably, the Kelvin should just plug straight in to the existing ship designs. The registry for the Kelvin drops her right in the middle of the Saladin-class, and they certainly share the single nacelle. However, the Ranger-class features the over-saucer pod in the RPG graphics, and while she's got two nacelles, something about the Kelvin being a Ranger-class just sits better with me. Maybe its because the name is cooler!
The 147-class reminds me a little of a Ptolemy-class, if it had snagged a nacelle from another ship. However, taking the rollbar into account, and the shape of the saucer, I'm guessing that its meant to be some sort of nuMiranda, or at least a tribute to that design. Its either that, or an entIntrepid that someone bolted the engineering hulls to.
Weirdly, the 238-class makes me think of an Oberth before anything else. I guess its the way that the nacelles are mounted onto the saucer, and the sloping pylons to the engineering hull. The older Oberths have registries are only the next hundred up from the Kelvin though, and though the snaps we've got are quite small, they look more like Enterprise relatives than Kelvin relatives. Maybe its the colour of the hull?
Someone mentioned a few pages ago that they thought it was weird that the Enterprise was still the 1701, despite having been delayed by... 13 years? I'm gonna flip things around and say that I'm glad of that, actually. Something about the way that Starfleet was approached in the movie conjured up images of it being quite a small venture still, particularly if the entire fleet could be tied up in a single battle so easily. Based on the formation of the Federation in 2161, we aren't even a century on from that, and they're meant to have produced 1600 ships? (Assuming that the Daedalus = NCC-100) Okay, most of the fleet was tied up, but only having eight starships left to defend Earth and Vulcan - two of the central planets in the Federation - seems a bit desperate to me. Unless there were already ships at Vulcan, which Nero destroyed before the Enterprise arrived? There was certainly a lot of debris.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Hi Capt., welcome to Flare.
As for #8, I'm totally convinced it has two engineering hulls, even though you can only clearly see one. The shuttlebay door of the other hull can be seen behind the port nacelle if you look closely enough. Heck, this guy built a model that proves it:
Right now, I'm just not entirely convinced #2 is also the same, as I've stated my issues with its nacelles. From that angle they almost look like Galaxy class nacelles
I wouldn't put too much stock in trying to equate what we saw in the movie to what was essentially a fan publication written in the late 70's (FJ's tech manual). I'm pretty sure any similarity with designs in the movie and sketches in the manual are entirely coincidental. And on that note, I'm sure there was not a lot of thought behind the registry schemes equating to time periods either, at least not like an Okudaic scheme would probably have been.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
If, as there's been some indication in the past, registries are assigned at a very early stage in an individual ship's development, then it stands to reason that the Enterprise might stay the 1701 even if it was delayed. Perhaps the Kelvin incident diverted resources away from the development of the Constitution-class, and towards smaller/easier-to-build/tried-and-tested designs; or perhaps they re-thought the design (well, obviously they re-thought the design, it's bloody different!) which caused delays - it's also a lot larger = longer to build? Or a combination of all those factors.
I find it easy to fit the Kelvin into the design lineage we all know. Well, it has to, doesn't it? It existed before the timeline change. I envisage it as a Colony ship, used to moving large populations around, hence the large complement and rather uninspired layout. Remaining in known space it wouldn't need the redundancy and speed that twin nacelles might offer an exploratory vessel.
Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
Colony ship. Ooh. That's good, Lee. I really like that. Also explains the number of shuttles. 800 lives was starting to bug me.
In gathering images for the Enterprise, I did get some potentially useful images for scaling the Kelvin. (also Nero fighting Klingons!) Will post if I come up with anything.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
A colony ship is a nice idea, indeed, but the USS Kelvin was on its way to Earth, since Kirk was supposed to be born there.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I see the Kelvin as probably the best indicator that this was already an established alternate reality and not a modification of the Primeline.
Picard and the gang's adventures will continue in the Pocket Books novels and will address the destruction of the Romulans.
As to all those shuttles, I figure the Kelvin was built before transporter tech was efficent for moving large numbers of crew....
OR
The communications and sensors seem to really suck in this period- maybe the shuttles serve as advance scouts for the ship- relaying information and extending the ship's sensor baseline.
Posted by Captain Untouchable (Member # 2161) on :
Just a thought. The script says that Kirk saved eight hundred lives. That doesn't mean that there were eight hundred aboard: that's how many got away. Now applying that logic to the fact that they escaped via shuttlecraft; running the numbers, you'd need to have about sixteen people in each of fifty shuttles in order to get those eight hundred survivors, and that doesn't take into account any of the shuttles that were destroyed - we saw at least one shuttle getting clipped by the Kelvin's phasers.
To me, that sounds totally over-the-top. I didn't sit there counting in the cinema, but there can't have been that many shuttles flying away from the Kelvin at the end.
I can only think of two reasons, really. It could just be a script error - and lets face it, we should be used to Star Trek getting its facts squiffy by now! - that was in there to provide an impressive number of survivors. Alternatively, it could not refer to the crew of the Kelvin at all - maybe because of the time that Kirk bought through his actions, Starfleet managed to evacuate a nearby base that Nero later went on to attack, or something?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Well, if that secondary hull was nothing but a shuttlebay with a deflector st the front, I could see them having the (stated in dialogue) 35 shuttles, though they'd need to be stacked somehow to conserve space.
Posted by Captain Untouchable (Member # 2161) on :
I'm still not sold, to be honest. Even with the 35 shuttles from dialogue, we're still looking at 20+ passengers each. While yeah, #37 may have been less crowded because it was a Medical Shuttle, I'm having a hard time believing that they actually managed to fit such a large number of people in such a tiny little ship. Even if it was standing room only, it'd be quite a squeeze.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
Well...if the Kelvin were a colony ship, as suggested, or even the scout ship/cruiser protecting a convoy of colony ships...that could be where the 800 people figure comes from. The Kelvin busied the Narada long enough to not only allow her own crew to get away (possibly 200-300), but to allow the other ships in the convoy to clear the area. That "lightning storm in space" could have been reason enough to keep the other ships in a safe position away from the anomaly, while the Kelvin investigated, perhaps being the best armed and equipped ship in the convoy.
Also, that could explain how the rather slow moving shuttles (with no indication thus far that they have warp drive) escaped. With the Narada temporarily crippled, they went back to wherever the other ships were, were picked up, and the remainder of the convoy (now without a significant chunk of it's escort, assuming that the Kelvin was either the only escort ship, or the most powerful) warped back to Earth, or the nearest Starfleet base.
Following this explanation, and the Kelvin having a crew of only 200 or so, the 35 shuttles could have easily evacuated the crew.
Posted by Captain Untouchable (Member # 2161) on :
That makes more sense to me. Its kinda what I was getting at earlier; the fact that the 800 people that George Kirk saved doesn't necessarily *have* to be the crew of the Kelvin.
Just out of curiosity, have any nicknames for the tri-nacelle and the "four" nacelle ship emerged on the internet yet? Aside from them being equated to the Farragut and Hood earlier, o'course. Is it worth trying to equate the tri-nacelle to the Miranda-class for example, or are we just assuming that they're totally new with no bearing on the Prime reality at all?
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
Well, I can't speak for the rest of the internet, but so far, the only "names" I can find for the ships around here are (for the 3 nacelled ship) the "147" class (because in the chart a few pages back, those ships were labeled #1,#4, and #7), and the over-under ship is the "238" class (ships 2, 3, and 8), from the same screenshot. As for actual names...nada. I'm sure someone will coin a name before long though.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:That makes more sense to me. Its kinda what I was getting at earlier; the fact that the 800 people that George Kirk saved doesn't necessarily *have* to be the crew of the Kelvin.
It may make more sense, but that's not what the movie implied. It implied that the Kelvin had 800 crew members. I mean, c'mon...what convoy? Where? And I'm not entirely sure why people are so antsy about the ship having 800 people aboard. Honestly, that's really not all that many. I think people are just equating this number with the fact that the TOS Enterprise only had 430 crew, which was ridiculously small to begin with.
quote:Just out of curiosity, have any nicknames for the tri-nacelle and the "four" nacelle ship emerged on the internet yet? Aside from them being equated to the Farragut and Hood earlier, o'course. Is it worth trying to equate the tri-nacelle to the Miranda-class for example, or are we just assuming that they're totally new with no bearing on the Prime reality at all?
They're totally new, insofar as they're not meant to be representative of any class we've seen before. Were they built before 2233? Possibly, which would imply that they were also part of the prime timeline (i.e. this Farragut would have been the same ship Kirk would have served on in the prime timeline, etc.) And the names that that model builder put on the saucers were just his guesses, not based in reality. Actually, the large saucer the Enterprise swerves to avoid was the Farragut's saucer, which was one of the Kelvin-type saucers from the "146" class (see below).
quote:Well, I can't speak for the rest of the internet, but so far, the only "names" I can find for the ships around here are (for the 3 nacelled ship, of which there is only one) the "147" class (because in the chart a few pages back, those ships were labeled #1,#4, and #7), and the over-under ship is the "238" class (ships 2, 3, and 8), from the same screenshot. As for actual names...nada. I'm sure someone will coin a name before long though.
Actually, that's not right. The three types of classes are the "238" (for the two-nacelled, two-engineering hulled ships), the "7" (for the three-nacelled ship), and the "146" (for the Kelvin-type saucered ships with two nacelles under the saucer). The Farragut and the Mayflower belong to these class of ships.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
Oops! I must have read the post a page back too fast.
Posted by Johnny (Member # 878) on :
quote:Originally posted by Captain Untouchable: Just out of curiosity, have any nicknames for the tri-nacelle and the "four" nacelle ship emerged on the internet yet?
Over on Scifi-Meshes.com they've been dubbed the "trike" and "quad". Haven't heard any "Iceland" style names yet, though.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
First of all, I agree with Dukhat. I don't see why we have to invent some hypothetical convoy just to rationalise a weird, but conceivable, number of survivors. Those 800 (plus) were on the Kelvin.
Second, it can still be a colony ship, it wouldn't only have a full passenger manifest on outward journeys. There are all sorts of reasons why all those people might be on board: returning contracted workers, perhaps, going back home after building a Starbase somewhere. Do you think the average Starfleet officer knows how to install a toilet main? Or a failed colony was being evacuated.
Now, names for the other classes: The tri-nacelle, well, that's like a Miranda with a third nacelle slung in between its 'legs;' so call it another character from The Tempest! Prospero. . . No, Caliban! But Caliban-class seems a bit alliterative. Perhaps another male Shakespearian character. Oberon? Meh. I don't like themed naming schemes, I think I'll just rest on my (Icelandic) laurels on this front.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Nope- I dont buy 800 plus crewmembers on the Kelvin- what would they be there for? That's like one window per every 50 crewmen. Where would they all sleep? I cant see the Federation "hotracking" crew for lack of bedspace.
...maybe the drive to attain a bridge position is that it's the only area of the ship thats not standing room only.
Could the Kelvin be some sort of cryo ship? Transporting 600 popsicles stacked in cryo-tubes...maybe even already in the shuttles, ready for transport to a planet? Biig stretch, I know.
Really, of course, it's just JJ and co. trying to give the movie a "bigger than thou" feel and not succeeding at all.
The more I see this movie, the more I'm ticked at the shitty BSG FTL effect- it's not Trek- On Trek they FUCKING GO TO WARP. It looks a certain way and it looks great. Same holds true with the phasers- the movie's battles would have been ten times better if the Enterprise and Kelvin had employed brilliant blue phaser beams- scoring the Narada's hull or impacting it's shields.
Posted by Captain Untouchable (Member # 2161) on :
I think the FTL effect is actually more Star Wars than Battlestar Galactica - in BSG they disappear on the spot, whereas Star Trek and Star Wars show some kind of lightning fast accelleration.
I prefer the new effects, but that's 'cause I'm a Physics student, and it seems more "realistic" to me. I like the fact that through the viewscreen, you can't conveniently see anything, which is logical. Sure, it isn't the same as what we're used to. But neither are most of the ship designs, the attention to detail, or the general lack of cheesiness. "Different" isn't inherantly bad.
I percieved the new movie as if the writers had gone back to the "original source material", rather than making an adaptation of the original show. Its like Pride and Prejudice - rather than trying to remake the BBC version, they went back to the original novel and re-adapted it. Just in this case, instead of "novel", its "Gene Roddenberry's notes".
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
You lost me with the "attention to detail" part. Yes, it's a fun movie but it's got far more than the usual amount of plot holes and VERY bad science for a Trek movie.
Posted by Mirror-Amasov (Member # 742) on :
We have never seen a TOS-ship go to warp. And the effect from TMP onwards was changed so many times I lost count. Even when it doesn't make sense: why did the E-E have different warp-effects in FC, Ins and Nemesis? (Especially Nemesis reminded me of that strange 'burnout' warp effect of the Chodak cruiser in the Generations game - see here) Actually, I'm quite happy with the new effect. I just miss the warp flash, but that's just me being sentimental...
As for the phasers: is there any reason for 'beams' at all - other than the fact that they look cooler than pulse weapons? From an effects pov, there sometimes wasn't even a distinction between phasers and photons.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Like M-A said, warp effects have always been changing. It only stayed somewhat consistent in TNG/DS9/VOY. Then towards the dark ages (ENT and Nemesis) it got worse, with the NX-01 and Ent-E having streaks behind them whenever they jumped, then the warp flash was shrunk to an almost unviewable size. The new warp effect may not be like the TNG era effect, but is sure is a step above the Ent and Nemesis effect.
Also about the Kelvin, I want to know what Survey or Colony ship packs so much heat. I mean you have standard beam phasers and then those flak cannon things.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
Try this vid from youtube for the different warp efects. Some of the movies didn't have the warp flash, and Nemesis sucked. Just sucked. Everything. Sucked. So bad. Don't want to think about how bad. Now I have to go and eat something to make me feel better after thinking about Nemesis. So bad...
There's something truly wonderful about the way the E-E is first seen to go to warp (in ST:FC) - made all the more piquant by the fact that subsequent iterations of the sequence have been so piss-poor.
I'd forgotten how disco most of the OS movies' warp FX were!
I can't decide which is rock-bottom worst though - the E-A in ST5:TFF or the E-E in ST:N.
Posted by Captain Untouchable (Member # 2161) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: You lost me with the "attention to detail" part. Yes, it's a fun movie but it's got far more than the usual amount of plot holes and VERY bad science for a Trek movie.
Very bad science? I have to say, a lot of the science featured in the movie was actually more logical than we're used to in Trek. I'd be intregued to hear which science in particular you thought was bad. Or do you just mean it "was bad Trek science"... meaning actually realistic?
Regarding attention to detail, I'm talking about little things; the lens flipping around on the phasers when the settings change; the PDF weapons; the fact that there were no SFX in space when the guy got blasted out during the Kelvin scene; that sort of stuff.
They're completely unnecessary. They aren't a nod to existing stuff for the fans, since they're all new. They aren't the kind of things that casual viewers would remember from the show when they watched it either, so that isn't the reason. Someone has sat down and thought "Right, so how is this going to work?" and has put a hell of a lot of effort into the fine details that most viewers probably wouldn't notice. The only "reason" is attention to detail, in the truest sense of the term.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Captain Untouchable: Very bad science? I have to say, a lot of the science featured in the movie was actually more logical than we're used to in Trek. I'd be intregued to hear which science in particular you thought was bad. Or do you just mean it "was bad Trek science"... meaning actually realistic?
Supernova? Black holes? Red matter? Transwarp beaming? WTF?
Sure, there has been really bad science in Trek before, but these were certainly no exceptions.
Posted by Mirror-Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Did they not have a scientific advisor? Where is Okuda when you need him?
On the other hand, call it red matter, or trilithium, or tachyon particles, or metaphasic particles, or ... what was that stuff in Nemesis again? Whatever. Or lets ask a simple question: how many decks does the E-E have? Hmm? The movies, of all the Treks over the decades, certainly have one of the worst track records. Giving the baby another name doesn't change the fact that it is your McGuffin, and its scientific plausibility is only secondary to the purpose of advancing the plot. Do you notice how we barely touch on any topic concerning the movies on this board? Subconsciously, we seem to know this already. Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
That's exactly the point, though. Just as with VGR & ENT, what was touted as being a new take on Trek, as something we'd never seen before, was ultimately just the same thing dressed up differently. Except now we've thrown continuity--which had been astonishingly well-preserved given the franchise's four decades of history--out the window, too.
True, other films have been much worse. It was plenty of fun to watch as long as you didn't think about it too much. But really, what is all this Second Coming crap so many are getting swept up in (though not necessarily anyone in this thread)? What is sooooo great about this, besides the mere having of another product on the market with the title Star Trek attached to it?
Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
(I realize we're wandering off here: This IS a starship thread, after all.)
Here's the thing: Canon stifles a writer's creativity. If you have an an exciting out-of-the-box idea with a certain story, but then are forced to check that it doesn't contradict some little detail in however many years of other materials, well guess what? You are now back inside the box.
In rebooting the producers have succeeded in making a very exciting, accessible and popular film which (whether we die-hard fans like it or not) has re-invigorated this franchise. I think the real genius here is that they did so without negating or betraying any of the Trek we've come to love, lo these many decades. So we will get to see more Trek because Paramount can make money from movies and stuff. The Trek we get will different enough that there's new stories, but similar enough that things are familiar. And so I'm excited to see what they come up with. If Nemesis was where it was headed, I for one am VERY glad to see it take a different direction.
Except, fuck that the Enterprise is 700 meters long. Fuck that shit right out the airlock.
Posted by Captain Untouchable (Member # 2161) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Supernova? Black holes?
My god, you're right. I've totally never heard of those scientific concepts ever before in my life. They definately weren't covered AT ALL in my Astrophysics lectures. And Supernovas definately don't extend for lightyears and destroy everything in their path - including planets. That's just totally ridiculous, and scientifically inaccurate.
Supernovas do actually do that. Sure, the implied pace of the thing was a little squiffy, but that might just be the editing: the star could have gone supernova years before Spock tried to stop it.
The idea of flying through a black hole and travelling through time is a genuine scientific theory - the idea is that a black hole might be the opening to a wormhole, the other end of which isn't necessarily at the same set of 4D coordinates. Stephen Hawking explains it pretty well in his book.
And yeah, Red Matter is a cheat. So is Transwarp Beaming; hell, beaming isn't real, or Warp for that matter. But its science fiction; and as sci-fi goes, it isn't all that big of one. There's a ton of stuff about the universe we don't actually know as yet. O'course its going to fill in the blanks.
I don't think that's cause to paint the movie as scientific bullshit; its certainly no worse than anything else the Trek franchise has churned out.
*shrug* I guess that's just how it looks from my particular perspective and background, though.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Interesting note: on some concept art from James Clyne, linked to from TrekMovie.com, the Kelvin interiors are labelled as being the Iowa. I gather the name "Kelvin" is one that Abrams insisted on as it has some kind of significance to him. Now, putting aside the notion that they were obviously try to be a bit TOO cute in having Kirk born on (or near) the USS Iowa, rather than the Hawkeye-State Iowa, it would be a pretty neat name for the Kelvin's class. Iowa-class, almost like the WW2 battleships. It's certainly big enough!
Posted by Mirror-Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Born *on* Iowa? Reminds me of that infamous "USS Discovery" from TOS...
bX, you know, I was thinking the exact same thing. If you really have a good story that does not fit into canon, you should be free to abandon it (I mean canon, not the sory... ). The thing is just: *This* particular story could have been told within the established realm of canon. There wouldn't have been a story if it was not for plot-devicing your way out of canon. That's the sole reason for Nero's existence. And besides, while I was watching the movie, I found it hard for me to connect to the characters (and I wondered why Spock did). After all, if there are infinite universes, why care for any universe but your own? Trek taught us about that big reset button, and for me it is quite hard to adjust and suddenly care for "those people". Maybe that's where the origin-story failed; it did not tell an origin of anyone I know or care about. It is nothing more than a fun but ultimately pointless what-if-scenario.
(Maybe I should mention that this is one of the best movies I've seen in years. But in the end, it is a far better "movie" than it is a "Star Trek movie", and I was hoping for both.)
Posted by HerbShrump (Member # 1230) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mirror-Amasov: , you know, I was thinking the exact same thing. If you really have a good story that does not fit into canon, you should be free to abandon it (I mean canon, not the sory... ).
I disagree on this point. Then again, I'm a canonista so what would one expect but to disagree?
I never knew my feelings about canon until I read an interview with Frank Miller several years ago. He was of the above mindset - canon (well, I think he said continuity) can be ignored in the face of a good story.
I understand this thinking but it ultimately comes down to what parts of canon you choose to ignore and what parts you choose to accept. Let's say I've got a great story for TOS but at the end of it Chekov dies. Can I do that? Can I tell this story, kill Chekov off only to have him reappear again later with no explanation? Some people think so but this leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Sure, maybe they're just minor background points. So what if Kirk was born/raised in Iowa or not? So what if Kirk ever spent time on Tarsus IV or not? In the grand scheme of things what does it matter? Probably not much.
But for those of us that live, eat and breathe this stuff constantly ripping out and reworking canon and continuity is akin to ripping out and re-weaving our favorite shirt over and over and over again.
Why should we get to pick and choose which bits of canon to include and which bits to exclude? And does that mean that next week we can go back and include and exclude different bits over again?
Posted by Mirror-Amasov (Member # 742) on :
IF there was such an exceptional story, if we had the next big thing in SF storytelling at our hands, and the thing that would keep it from happening was our reverence towards canon. Keep in mind that there has never been such a story that could not be told within the framework of canon. Authors got used to it, and Star Trek is quite open when it comes to possible restrictions for writers. IF Ron Moore had respected the canon and continued BSG, it wouldn't have become the great show it is. *That* is the kind of exception I'm talking about. XI on the other hand is just an excuse to wipe the slate of clean with regard to hard canon while at the same time being able to refer to the tentpoles of Trek (did someone mention Khan for XII?). It quite intelligent, but at the same time incredibly cheap.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
A supernova is a natural phenomenon; it cannot travel faster than light. The idea that Spock could have been en route in Vulcan's fastest ship and been beaten to Romulus by the supernova is ludicrous.
As for the so-called "black holes," they behave absolutely nothing like what we know of real black holes. The time travel thing is the least of it, I don't even mind that. There's just no conception in anyone's mind in the film that after swallowing Vulcan, or Nero's ship, or whatever, a black hole would only grow and continue to suck in more matter until it ate everything. It's not just something that can be shrugged off or magically disappear once the drama is over.
The only semblance of believability technologies like warp drive and transporters have are their self-imposed limitations. If those limitations can be circumvented willy nilly at anyone's convenience through whatever plot device, they become totally unbelievable.
On the larger issue of continuity, I do not believe it stifles creativity at all. Most of the time, the only reason to violate it is laziness, both on the part of the writer and the audience. You can talk all you want about canon getting in the way of good storytelling, but in my considered opinion, if your story violates the principal internal order (physical or historical) of the fictional universe in which it takes place, IT IS NOT A GOOD STORY. If you have to use contrivances that are disruptive to suspension of disbelief, IT IS NOT A GOOD STORY. PERIOD.
If you don't want to be bothered with actually knowing what has or hasn't been done and said, if you want a clean slate, to start from scratch, then do just that. Make up your own damn fictional universe instead of running amuck in one that's already been established. Invent something new and unique instead of constantly trying to reinvent, rework, reimagine, reboot, remake, repackage, rebrand, retread everything. Pop culture is becoming unhealthily derivative and people are eating it up with a spoon.
The new film was fun and exciting to watch for two hours after years with no Star Trek. The actors, for the most part, played their roles endearingly. The SFX were on the high side of average. The story was a bloody mess, though. Leaving wholly aside any contradictions that could be justified by the premise, even excusing the gaping plot holes as par for the course, it served no purpose other than to present a parade of (somewhat) familiar characters. If that was a good science (or even social science) fiction story then I'm very sad to be living in this very sorry era of science fiction.
-MMoM Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I think it boils down to the nature of the medium in which you choose to tell your stories. If you want to write stories for a series, people expect it to fit together into a believable, consistent faux-reality. That's part of the fun. Identifying with characters you care about and getting to eventually fit together the pieces of their lives.
If you want to tell good, one-shot stories, write a novel.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
The reason why we get all these retreads is that Hollywood is not going to take the time or gamble money on something that could be a risk. Taking the familiar and tweaking it has an automatic built in audience. People are familiar with the story/characters/backgrounds and it then allows for a bunch of "Oooh-ahhhs" from SFX to make it a "Blockbuster".
If you have something that is totally different, the returns are nowhere near as immediate. The audience has to grow through word of mouth and much more hype. A following has to grow. Then there is always the chance that it does not become the next Star Wars or Terminator. That is NOT instant monetary gratification that the Ho'-wood leeches demand. Hence we get retreads of the familiar or movies based off of fond memories of childhood toys/heroes.
The trouble is, that Familiarity breeds contempt.
Posted by Captain Untouchable (Member # 2161) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: [QB] A supernova is a natural phenomenon; it cannot travel faster than light. The idea that Spock could have been en route in Vulcan's fastest ship and been beaten to Romulus by the supernova is ludicrous.
You're making the (possibly flawed) assumption that Spock departed from Romulus. The "fastest ship" was built by the Vulcan Science Institute, so he could concievably have gone back to Vulcan to get the red matter, and tried to fly back to Romulus in Vulcan's fastest ship, but didn't make it in time before the Supernova got there.
quote:As for the so-called "black holes," they behave absolutely nothing like what we know of real black holes. The time travel thing is the least of it, I don't even mind that. There's just no conception in anyone's mind in the film that after swallowing Vulcan, or Nero's ship, or whatever, a black hole would only grow and continue to suck in more matter until it ate everything. It's not just something that can be shrugged off or magically disappear once the drama is over.
Spock was the one that called it a "Black Hole". If the singularity didn't actually behave like a black hole (about which very little is known, incidentally), then perhaps it wasn't an actual black hole, and Spock was generalising. Perhaps it was a micro-singularity, like the ones that were theoretically going to blink in and out of existance every few fractions of a second in the LHC at CERN? You're assuming that nothing new about science could possibly be discovered in the next couple of centuries; think about how many times scientific assumptions have been proven wrong in the past.
As for the rest... I hope you enjoyed getting the rant out of your system. I happen to agree with very little of it... but then I see stuff like the Star Trek franchise as just being "a story". In the same way that the classic novels get retold in slightly different ways from time to time, I don't see why such a damn good story can't be retold in such a way that it *doesn't* exclude a whole new audience.
I mean, come on: how many new viewers do you honestly think would have gone to see the movie, if it had just slotted in with the continuity? Either it would have needed to spend ages re-introducing the characters (which would be boring for fans), or it would have not bothered, and thus confused and alienated the new viewers. This way, they came up with a compromise that allowed them to describe familiar characters and situations, but in such a way that was new for everyone.
Its fun. It was enjoyable. You said so yourself. At the end of the day, why the hell does anything beyond that matter? Its a movie, for Kirk's sake! Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Captain Untouchable: You're making the (possibly flawed) assumption that Spock departed from Romulus. The "fastest ship" was built by the Vulcan Science Institute, so he could concievably have gone back to Vulcan to get the red matter, and tried to fly back to Romulus in Vulcan's fastest ship, but didn't make it in time before the Supernova got there.
I was actually assuming he left from Vulcan. The point is that a supernova in even a nearby system wouldn't pose a direct threat to Romulus for years. It's not an instantaneous event. It's not going to sneak up on you.
quote:Spock was the one that called it a "Black Hole". If the singularity didn't actually behave like a black hole (about which very little is known, incidentally), then perhaps it wasn't an actual black hole, and Spock was generalising. Perhaps it was a micro-singularity, like the ones that were theoretically going to blink in and out of existance every few fractions of a second in the LHC at CERN? You're assuming that nothing new about science could possibly be discovered in the next couple of centuries; think about how many times scientific assumptions have been proven wrong in the past.
Even granting all that as potentially true, you're giving the filmmakers far too much credit and missing the point. There's a difference between the rationale behind a film and the rationalizations the audience comes up with to smooth things over when the former is lacking. I am criticizing one, not the other. I fully support any rationalizations we may need to posit to make sense of the nonsense displayed in the movie. I do not support a creative policy that considers these matters of scientific plausibility to be immaterial in devising the story to be told.
quote:As for the rest... I hope you enjoyed getting the rant out of your system. I happen to agree with very little of it...
You are, of course, free to disagree with it. It would be a pretty boring and static world if we all agreed about everything. We all have our own points of view, and it's nice to have a place like this to talk about them with people who share some of the same interests.
quote:I don't see why such a damn good story can't be retold in such a way that it *doesn't* exclude a whole new audience.
You keep using the phrase "good story" without defining what you mean by it. What is so good about the story presented in the film? Grieving villain on killing spree stopped by gifted teenagers.
The problem with action movies is that their stories are not created around unified controlling ideas, but rather around the desired action sequences. The story is incidental, merely a way of getting from one fight or explosion to another. The plot serves no purpose other than to showcase action and scenery-chewing.
That is not what Star Trek should be, IMO. It should be about presenting scientific, social, moral, and philosophical dilemmas and exploring their possible outcomes through a combination of logic (reasoned discourse and experimentation) and human ingenuity (creativity and adaptability). These issues should be ones that are--or may, in the future, be--directly relevent to our lives. There should be some kind of actual intellectual content that we can learn from or that can at least get us to think about something other than how cool those explosions were or what a badass Kirk is. The action should be the incidental component of the plot instead of the other way around.
quote:I mean, come on: how many new viewers do you honestly think would have gone to see the movie, if it had just slotted in with the continuity?
I have no idea, but I think you are conflating at least three distinct things: a good film that stands on its own storytelling merits, a film that will draw large audiences and make a lot of money, and a film that ties in with extant material. While these certainly can be inclusive of each other, they often aren't.
I'll let the producers worry about their turnaround; as a consumer my concern is the quality of the product I receive. I am not satisfied in this case, and I may be a demanding customer but don't believe I am an unsatisfiable one.
quote:Either it would have needed to spend ages re-introducing the characters (which would be boring for fans), or it would have not bothered, and thus confused and alienated the new viewers.
I do not see your logic, here. Why would staying in line with continuity require extensive re-introduction of the characters? Why spend time on elaborate and contrived introductions of characters at all? Just tell an interesting and believable story that has relevence and meaning and let the character's words and actions speak for themselves. That's exactly what TOS did. The first episode was not about how the main characters met each other. No such story was necessary then and it wasn't necessary now either. It's nothing but a gimmick.
quote:This way, they came up with a compromise that allowed them to describe familiar characters and situations, but in such a way that was new for everyone.
And what they ended up with was the most self-referential film the franchise has yet seen, which paradoxically seeks to distinguish itself by presenting stereotypical distillations of its source material while leaving out the complexities that made it interesting and believable in the first place. A prequel with no point. A film that at once holds no resonating siginificance outside of itself and is insignificant outside of the context of TOS's resonance within popular culture.
quote:Its fun. It was enjoyable. You said so yourself.
After years with no ST and if you didn't think about it, I said. After years with no sex, even a one-night stand with a one-eyed hooker would probably feel good, until the next morning.
quote:At the end of the day, why the hell does anything beyond that matter? Its a movie, for Kirk's sake!
To me, the motion picture is a valid and valued art form that is failing to live up to its potential and being increasingly drained of its validity and value due to commercial conceits. I suppose I feel that the movie did just what Kirk did: it cheated instead of doing its homework and delivering well-thought-out work.
Maybe in the future I'll be able to enjoy the film as a somber allegory to the era and industry of its making!
-MMoM Posted by Mirror-Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Just a thought on the 'good story'. The story itself was crap. "Villain accidentially travels through time to destroy Vulcan for some confuse reasons and the tries to destroy the universe for no reason at all". What made the movie work was the chraracters, more than anything else. The whole thing was character-driven, not story-driven. Which is a good thing, usually. It's just that *we* are used to 40+ years of mostly story-driven narratives in Trek (in the shows, I will exclude some of the movies and a few episodes here), which makes it feel strange to us. The story construct of this movie felt like an afterthought, as if someone sat in the writer's room and said "You know, we have all these wonderful characters and dialogue and interactions, but we actually need some story we can tell". It probably took about 5 minutes to come up with it. Seriously, I even dare to say that it definitely was not one of the first things Orci and Kurtzman developed. Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Captain Untouchable:
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: You lost me with the "attention to detail" part. Yes, it's a fun movie but it's got far more than the usual amount of plot holes and VERY bad science for a Trek movie.
Very bad science? I have to say, a lot of the science featured in the movie was actually more logical than we're used to in Trek. I'd be intregued to hear which science in particular you thought was bad. Or do you just mean it "was bad Trek science"... meaning actually realistic?
Regarding attention to detail, I'm talking about little things; the lens flipping around on the phasers when the settings change; the PDF weapons; the fact that there were no SFX in space when the guy got blasted out during the Kelvin scene; that sort of stuff.
They're completely unnecessary. They aren't a nod to existing stuff for the fans, since they're all new. They aren't the kind of things that casual viewers would remember from the show when they watched it either, so that isn't the reason. Someone has sat down and thought "Right, so how is this going to work?" and has put a hell of a lot of effort into the fine details that most viewers probably wouldn't notice. The only "reason" is attention to detail, in the truest sense of the term.
Not the SuperNovas or the Black holes so much as spock seeing Vulcan be destroyed from the ice-planet's surface, Earth to Vulcan in six minutes, no communications with the fleet despite the "jamming" having been eliminated and YES, Transwarp beaming- I mean really, why bother with a fucking ship at all after that's proven?!? Then there's the idiot notion that Kirk will run into Spock on the ice planet and they both with run into Scotty (now sadly reduced to a comedic catchphrase character) and all the other plot holes. Yeah, it's a "reboot" but throwing out all your established psydo-science is a huge waste and clearly the result of writer that could not be bothered to get it right with the franchise.
Bad science, big plot holes, stuff that stains the plausability of even a Star Trek movie and the tossing of established rules for treknology are all indicators of a lack of attention to detail and/or respect for the source material. You decide which.
Incidently, I found the hand "phasers" really poorly designed- a big glowing indicator on your gun in a darkened environment is like having a "kill me" sign in neon over your position.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
My daughter loves playing with the phaser.
"Please can I play with your toy?" "IT'S NOT A TOY!" "Oh, just let her play with it." "Gah!"
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
So Jason, you pretty much see this as the Trek version of "Wormhole Extreme"?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
EXACTLY the joke my friends all made after watching this- just like the 200th episode of SG1. "Dude, she was a G'Auld." "So? I was gonna tap dat!" Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
Sorry for dropping in so late.
bX: I already saw your deck structure a couple of days ago and I totally agree with it. There is hardly any other vessel with so much consistency in recognizable decks. If we are not allowed to use this method here, where else?
Sure. They can always divide up each deck into two, but it is just too obvious that the original Church design either borrows heavily from the 300m Enterprise for no good reason or was meant to be 300m itself.
Thanks for permission to use the images!
Posted by Wes (Member # 212) on :
Wasn't the Hobus star supposed to be some crazy supernova that threatened the entire galaxy? Something that many of the Alpha Quadrant races have never seen before?
We can toss all scientific knowledge out the window at this point, since this is supposed to be some crazy mega explosion that probably exists in subspace too.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wes: Wasn't the Hobus star supposed to be some crazy supernova that threatened the entire galaxy? Something that many of the Alpha Quadrant races have never seen before?
We can toss all scientific knowledge out the window at this point, since this is supposed to be some crazy mega explosion that probably exists in subspace too.
That's really lame, though. It's like writing a story about a plane crashing after colliding with a flock of ostriches. (But ostriches don't fly! These ones do! They are unlike any ostriches known to science! Because I am the storyteller and I say so! It's fiction, what do you care??)
Yes, there probably are as yet unknown phenomena that would seem unbelievable to us and yet exist nonetheless. This is not a catch-all excuse to invent nonsensical plot devices because you're too lazy to do some research and come up with something logical that doesn't violate basic universal physical laws. Science fiction is at least supposed to have some fundamental footing in, you know, actual science. And all good fiction should be at least somewhat believable.
Besides, not even that flimsy non-explanation you cite was in the film. It's from a non-canon comic.
Posted by Mirror-Amasov (Member # 742) on :
This is the main problem with the entire film: We're not looking at it from the perspective we're used to. It's like watching First Contact from Cochrane's perspective or TVH from Gillians. You have all this stuff going on around you, but you don't get any insight. It's none of our business this time. We don't get Spocks perspective here. We're left in the dark about all of that. So maybe there is a good explanation as to what is going on in the 24th century. But we weren't actually 'there' with the movie, we just kinda read about it in the newspaper this time. We're not backstage, just part of the crowd. You know what I mean?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
That's a point as well. But the very least they could have done vis à vis the "supernova" and "black hole" would be to not call them that.
Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
That's just it. I think the thing that burns me a bit is how a few simple alterations to dialogue (or even a couple well placed title cards) would address many of these fan concerns. If Pike said "400" instead of "800". If it was shuttle 9 instead of 34 (or 407 or whatever it was). If there had been a title card stating "18 months later..." If someone, anyone, had said something, anything, about Nero's miles long mining ship monstrosity. If we'd been given some better sense of Nero's grief/loss and why it was SO focused on Spock (OK this might take a few extra lines, perhaps even a whole scene.) If instead of a single supernova, it was some mysterious supraluminal, subspace compression wake setting off Novae across the quadrant (extra credit if it turns out this was the unanticipated result of a red matter experiment Spock Prime had been conducting from Nero's research vessel.)
What I'm saying is that just a few little things would have made for a movie that would have been every bit as popular with the general public, and wouldn't have bothered hard core fans so much. I still count myself a fan of this movie, but I do so despite these problems and would prefer not to have to do that.
I also wanted to add on the subject of scaling: For those unfamiliar with 3D modelling (and I'm not claiming any grand expertise here), but I think it's a pretty common technique to overscale the model so as to wring every possible detail out of the render engine you can get. Also that Star Trek has pretty consistently scaled either planets down or ships up to exaggerate motion or otherwise enhance the storytelling. In my admittedly limited experience, this is A) very easy to do (purposely or otherwise) and B) commonly an entirely separate step (a separate program sometimes) from the actual modelling or texturing. Which makes me wonder if someone was just looking at a number in an animation file to make the new E so gargantuan.
Posted by tricky (Member # 1402) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: That's really lame, though. It's like writing a story about a plane crashing after colliding with a flock of ostriches. (But ostriches don't fly! These ones do! They are unlike any ostriches known to science! Because I am the storyteller and I say so! It's fiction, what do you care??)
Yes, but now you are comparing our knowledge of the Earth and it's phenomena with the Federation's knowledge of space and it's phenomena. Huge stretch. In the history of star trek how many 'new' things have occurred, space storms, fluidic dimensions, rings that make a planet's life immune to cellular degeneration, many different ways to time travel, different types of black holes, planets that exist in time pockets that are greatly accelerated from our own -- the list really goes on. In comparison, an "ultra nova" is really not that crazy.
quote:Yes, there probably are as yet unknown phenomena that would seem unbelievable to us and yet exist nonetheless. This is not a catch-all excuse to invent nonsensical plot devices because you're too lazy to do some research and come up with something logical that doesn't violate basic universal physical laws. Science fiction is at least supposed to have some fundamental footing in, you know, actual science. And all good fiction should be at least somewhat believable.
Since when is Star Trek science, which is only vaguely based in real science, always believable under this level of scrutiny. Aside from what I mentioned, something used on Star Trek so often, a transporter, is pretty much completely and totally implausible, but because it's been in Star Trek since the 60's, we kinda just accept it exists. If you want to call an explanation flimsy? The "Hiesenburg Compensator" is as flimsy as it gets.
quote:Besides, not even that flimsy non-explanation you cite was in the film. It's from a non-canon comic.
The ultimate point of releasing a comic that greatly expands the new trek as it relates to the old Trek, and was mostly for the hardcore fans who really needed something to segway into the film and this new universe. I think it did a decent job of creating that uber-geeky trek atmosphere and kinda bringing it in to the more hip Abrams-verse...
I understand the arguments that Nero was 2 dimensional and the entire store was sorta just there... but really this was a fun, exciting launching pad to the New Star Trek(tm). I think the Onion parody news article was spot on with how the hardest of hardcore fans will react to this new Trek.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I would certainly not deny that there have been stupid plot devices and bad science in Trek before. I don't see that as being a defense for adding more to the mix, though. I might be equally critical of a multitude of other scenarios such as the ones you cite, but they are not what is in question in the context of this discussion.
If anything, the new film ought to be held to a more rigorous standard than what has come before, considering its whole premise was designed to facilitate a fresh start. It is only my personal opinion, but if the goal was to retain the strongest aspects of Trek and discard the weakest, this film taken as a whole fell short of that goal. (And that doesn't mean I didn't enjoy much of it.)
And as I said earlier in the thread, the point is not so much that there are no rationalizations that can be made to explain things like this as it is that good fiction should not create the need for them in the first place. Writers can obviously make up any farfetched thing they want, but that doesn't mean they should. I consider it their charge to make up something logical, believable, and compelling. Some parts of the new film lived up to this, and some didn't.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Getting back to ship sizes, if the E is 725 meters, than how big is the station it's docked at? It must be Gargantuan!
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
And that makes the saucer the ship almost crashed into at Vulcan easily more than a km in diameter. Although, in the E's defense, at 725 meters, easily 200 meters of that is nacelle.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Couple of updates:
1. I found this pic at the TrekBBS. It seems to show that the big saucer the Enterprise almost rams into is actually the remains of the Farragut. However, we still can't see which ship the saucer belonged to.
2. This pic is the first to show the third type of Starfleet vessel, besides the three-naceller and the two-nacelled/two-engineering hulled ship. To me, it looks like the Kelvin's saucer with two nacelles attached underneath at the extreme left and right edges of the saucer. Actually it's a pretty plain design, but since it wasn't seen all that well it automatically becomes an obsession for me
I think you can make out "RRAG" on the saucer. It could belong to the USS FaRRAGut.
Posted by Starship Freak (Member # 293) on :
Actually, I think you can see it. On the pic of the station, to the farthest left is a starship that is a bit obscured, but recently another pic of the same scene was released that seem to show that the ship in question is a two-naceller, possibly then this one.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
A little Photoshop cranking makes it quite a bit clearer. You can easily see the entire name now:
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
I can only make out a FARRAG, but whatever I guess it is the Farragut.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I see the U and the T, but they're alot lighter.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I see a butterfly...maybe a horsey.
Posted by Starship Freak (Member # 293) on :
So, nobody´s noticed that Ryan Church posted more pics on his website? Including a TOS-ified version of the Kelvin - USS Iowa? Would that be a concept or one of the ships at the spacestation? Haven´t we identified tentatively at least a Kelvin-class docked there? If so, could this instead be the one we´re seeing?
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
I think that's probably an earlier concept since the concept drawings of the Kelvin bridge were also labeled "USS Iowa". It's likely they told him to make it look not-so-much-TOS and dirty it up a bit.
Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
Nothing like car whip antennas from CB radios to dirty things up.
Posted by PraetorTom (Member # 2167) on :
I have never posted here before, so this will be my first.
On the number of survivors from the Kelvin, I agree with some of you about the theory that the 800 survivors was probably just a large number to make his sacrifice sound more impressive. The ship looks like it isn't really larger than the Enterprise. Maybe the saucer section is a little wider, but generally comparable in size. Or, the theory of it being a typo is correct. Writers are only human and prone to the same mistakes as the rest of us. Though, as writers for a 'Trek' movie you'd think that they would have second checked their work.If these two are not the case, then why couldn't it be a military escort for a convoy? The Defiant was designed for that very role in DS9! The Kelvin would have been a great escort for convoys considering her abilities. Personally, I would give her a crew of no more than 300-400, as would be fitting to her size.
As for the shuttlecraft number, this would appear meaningless. The numbers could have simply been the production number of that particular craft. It doesn't necessarily mean that they carried that many onboard! Look at the Kelvin's size. Not much room in that bay for that many shuttles.She could have been a replacement for any number of prior shuttles lost in service. They tend to go through quite a few.
As for the size of the new Enterprise, well, I follow the theory presented with the pixelated studies done earlier in this discussion, around 300 meters sounds about right. The numbers are very close to the original ship. I have no problem with that. It fits into the scheme of the original series.
Looking at the picture of the starbase, and it's enhanced starship images, this what I believe that I see...
3 starships with double warp nacelles and double secondary hulls.
At least 1 with triple warp nacelles and no visible secondary hull.
The other ships I am still scrutinizing.
A great deal of what we see in things on screen is based on our individual interpretation. If we look for fault, we will find it. That's just the nature of things. Nobody will ever be 100% correct, nobody will ever be 100% accurate, and nobody will ever be 100% satisfied!
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Welcome to the asylum. Posted by machf (Member # 1233) on :
Hey, you stole my line... (though I haven't used it on this forum)
Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
Welcome.
I'm still a fan of Lee's idea about the Kelvin being some sort of Colony or human transport vessel. Maybe evacuating people from someplace else is why they have so many. Still not sure how/why they'd have so many shuttles.
I went back through the thread, and realized I hadn't publicly freaked out about OverRon mocking up 3D models of the ships at the station. Super cool. (Not cool in the pulling chicks sort of way, but you know...) I salute you, sir.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
Some of the shuttles could have been from where ever they were evacuating people from. It seems like that in this time line, shuttle are still preferred to the transporter, and it seems logical to me that there'd be some people who would prefer to take a shuttle off the colony, rather than the transporter. If that opportunity presented itself (i.e. , the colony wasn't about to explode, or wasn't in imminent danger),I can see them using shuttles for the evacuation instead. It just so happened that the Kelvin had enough room for those extra shuttles in it's bay.
Same thing could work in reverse as well. They're carrying people to a colony, and plan on moving the inhabitants down en mass, so they pack a more than a few extra shuttles for the task, probably those large transport shuttles we see Kirk and McCoy on, and cargo transport shuttles, perhaps similar to the one Pike used to drop the three amigos onto the drill.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Except that...there's no colony. Nobody said shit about a colony. The 800 people were the Kelvin's crew. I mean, they were traveling through Klingon space! Why would a ship full of colonists do that?
Posted by Mirror-Amasov (Member # 742) on :
When did they mention travelling through Klingon space? There was some background chatter when Narada appeared, and I seem to remember them saying that they were several lightyears away from the Neutral Zone. But I could be wrong.
Anyway, we know that Kirk Prime was born in Iowa. And his mother must have been in her 8th or 9th month during the events that started the movie. So without the appearance of Nero, the ship must have been back on earth in a matter of weeks, maybe even days. The colony-idea is a good one, but it could have been just the opposite: what if they were not on their way to deliver some colonists, but on their way back *from* a colony. Assuming there has been some trouble with the Klingons, maybe Starfleet gave up a colony and Kelvin was bringing them back home.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Which is exactly what I said several pages ago.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mirror-Amasov: Anyway, we know that Kirk Prime was born in Iowa.
No, we don't. He described himself as being "from Iowa" in STIV, not specifically that he was born there, and that's all we ever got on the subject.
Posted by Mirror-Amasov (Member # 742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: Which is exactly what I said several pages ago.
But it seems others have ignored your idea, which is why I brought it up again.
@Mim: Okay, so he's "from" Iowa, but before the movie came out, we never made a big deal out of this. "From" used to be "born in". But it isn't that important anyway. For all we know, they could have been on their way to Tarsus IV. Maybe the Kelvin was assigned to that planet.
The whole problem is the ship's size. If the JJprise really is 700+ meters, this thing could be equally large without any problem. 800 people would be okay for such a large ship. Actually, it would not even mess with continuity to have such a big ship. Odd, definitely, but not impossible (you know, we don't have much of this era to compare to, the "Constitution=biggest of the fleet" is mere speculation). But if the ship is indeed *reasonably* sized (either by us, compared to a 300m-JJprise, or by ILM themselves), 800 crew would be ridiculous and we need one of the above 'passenger' theories. I also wonder what the 'official' number of crewmen (official for the 700+m-JJprise) is supposed to be. If the ship is 20 times as massive as the Prime-E, (and it apparently is as densely packed as the original and the Kelvin), it could have up to 8,000 crew members. No wonder they needed everyone they could get, including all students of the academy. Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mirror-Amasov: @Mim: Okay, so he's "from" Iowa, but before the movie came out, we never made a big deal out of this. "From" used to be "born in".
Who's making big deal out of it? I was just clarifying so that it doesn't catch on as one of those so-called continuity errors that isn't really one at all and doesn't really require any rationalization. That's the kind of thing that had (and still has some) people claiming the Starfleet of ENT is a separate entity from the familiar Starfleet of the rest of Trek that just happens to have the same name, when nothing of the sort was ever intended.
In the case of the new film, they originally were going to call the Kelvin the Iowa, presumably because they thought they'd need to get around him being "born in Iowa." Then somebody probably pointed out that this would be an unnecessary gimmick, because nothing canon ever said he was born in Iowa.
And no, "being from" somewhere doesn't have to mean you were physically born there. I'm sure if someone was born on a plane flying over Wyoming, but was raised from infancy in California, they'd probably still describe themselves as being "from California."
Not trying to escalate an argument, here. I'm just saying. Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
^Bingo. I say that I'm from Georgia all the time, but I wasn't born there, and didn't move there until I was three. But that's where I grew up.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
OK, so a TOSed Miranda called the Defiant, registry looks like NCC-(might be a 1 there?)7(3, 6, 8 or even 0)4. I'm gonna take a stab and say NCC-764. And the USS Newton, registry NCC-1737. Which means that there are ships with higher registries then the just-commissioned Enterprise. Which kinda backs up my suggestion that the development of the Constitution-class might have been held up by the events which created the tangent universe.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Well, this looks like concept art, not the actual CG renders, so the names and numbers could be different in the actual movie, especially since neither the Newton or the Defiant was mentioned in dialog (unless they're the two unknown ships, but one of them might be the Mayflower...), but besides that, it looks like we now have views of the mysterious third type of Starfleet vessel docked at the station.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
The TOSed Miranda reg looks like NCC-1764 to me. Which, kinda geeks me out, as the first Miranda we saw was the Reliant, NCC 1864. Maybe I'm just making connections that aren't there, but it just seems interesting to me. Also, the registry of the Constitution class Defiant in TOS and ENT IaMD is NCC 1764, so there's a nice reference to the Prime timeline.
The ships shown could have also represented the first ships of their classes. So, perhaps we have the Newton class, and the Defiant class.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:The TOSed Miranda reg looks like NCC-1764 to me. Which, kinda geeks me out, as the first Miranda we saw was the Reliant, NCC 1864. Maybe I'm just making connections that aren't there
Yes. You are. It's the crazyhouse for you, Sean. So sad.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Nice one, Mars. Sweet views on those ships, they look TOS-ish yet sleek, without the former clunkiness.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
An exhaustive ship information list compiled by yours truly.
Also of note: Two of the Small Ships are still in the same positions when the Enterprise finally warps away: http://www.box.net/shared/ebvehg3ti6
I think the ship on the left might be John Eaves' TOS version of his "U.S.S. Phoenix" from Star Trek: Armada: http://www.box.net/shared/086zzada2n Posted by Amasov Prime (Member # 742) on :
The Phoenix above is the same image they used in the AoST. The Klingon concepts have previously appeared as concepts for ST:Enterprise. I suppose the other Starfleet concept isn't new either. So I guess Eaves just recycled some stuff for the movie or the authors recycled some stuff for the book.
Btw, excellent work on that list!
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Watched the movie again for the first time since the theaters. And I thought of an interesting interpretation of one line, where Ayel says there are seven ships approaching.
Could that line be interpreted to be the first wave of ships, and exclude the Enterprise (which was farther out)? 'Cause they later refer to the Enterprise as "another" ship, acting as if they hadn't included that ship with the previous batch.
That could mean that there were eight ships in the fleet.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I think they notified the discovery on subspace.
Posted by Amasov Prime (Member # 742) on :
Close. The front (the ring - it's supposed to be the front, isn't it?) is similar. I took a photo, but I can't upload it for some reason. It tells me I need 250 posts to upload.
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
Yeah, FlareUpload is fubared at the moment. I'd recommend another photo sharing site; Picasa, Flikr, Photobucket, etc.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: I certainly never imagined THE Kobayashi Maru as a Starfleet ship. The registry of "Amber, Tau Ceti" whatever doesn't scream Starfleet, nor did Vance.
It’s not a Starfleet ship. The ECS in the registry stands for Earth Cargo Service (or Ship).
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Ah, missed that . . . I was fixated on the new "USS" and saucer shape. It does have Starfleet pennants, though. I'd still just as soon assume it to be a non-Starfleet-esque design in Prime.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
The thing is, there's no reason for the Kobayashi Maru to even have a design. Even within the context of the fictional Trek universe, it is itself a fictional ship in a training simulation. In the version we saw in TWoK, the simulation didn't show any sort of representaion of the appearance of the ship on the screen. Even if it sometimes did, though, for all we know the programmers of the simulation might change things up every time they make updates. Maybe, for a few months, the ship is a freighter out of Tau Ceti. Then they make some tweaks to the simulation, and the next class of cadets is dealing with USS Kobayashi Maru, a Starfleet science vessel. Then, a year later, they make some more changes, and the Kobayashi Maru is a privately-owned passenger vessel.
Basically, any attempt to say what the ship is or looks like seems meaningless, because there could easily be hundreds of versions of it over the years.
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
Yep, and I'm sure the scenario is totally different in the 24th century with a more time appropriate design and foe.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
That is fucking hideous, and I say that as the creator of the Baywatch-class.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Is that the one with the dual spherical primary hulls and the gaping deflector above that really ought to have been a huge ramscoop?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Yes. Funny thing, I went looking for a picture of it a while back, and found that somebody on DeviantArt had coloured it in.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Duck egg blue or fleshtones?
Posted by Brown_supahero (Member # 83) on :
I just read that the USS Mayflower in the 2009 Star Trek movie was a Miranda-class.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
). We definitely see one intact ship at the space station, although it is very small. It seems to consist of a small saucer with two nacelles attached to upward-pointing pylons. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
*giggles insanely* ...uncircumsized hubcaps...
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
I will try to deliver some new info tonight...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
click me for hi-rez!! 
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
I must have read the post a page back too fast.
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
